Schism dispach't or A rejoynder to the replies of Dr. Hammond and the Ld of Derry. Sergeant, John, 1622-1707. 1657 Approx. 1502 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 360 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A92925 Wing S2590 Thomason E1555_1 ESTC R203538 99863473 99863473 115675 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A92925) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 115675) Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 196:E1555[1]) Schism dispach't or A rejoynder to the replies of Dr. Hammond and the Ld of Derry. Sergeant, John, 1622-1707. [16], 666, [28] p. s.n.], [Paris? : M.DC.LVII. [1657] A reply to "A reply to the Catholick gentlemans answer to the most materiall parts of the booke Of schisme" by Henry Hammond and "A replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon his Survey of the Vindication of the Church of England from criminous schism" by John Bramhall. Place of publication suggested by Wing. With a postscript leaf followed by a blank and an index. Annotation on Thomason copy: "August.". Reproduction of the original in the British Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660. -- Reply to the Catholick gentlemans answer to the most materiall parts of the booke Of schisme -- Early works to 1800. Bramhall, John, 1594-1663. -- Replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon his Survey of the Vindication of the Church of England from criminous schism -- Early works to 1800. Schism -- Early works to 1800. 2007-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2007-04 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-05 Mona Logarbo Sampled and proofread 2007-05 Mona Logarbo Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion SCHISM DISPACH'T OR A REIOYNDER TO THE REPLIES OF D r HAMMOND AND THE L d OF DERRY . IN MALA CAVSA NON possunt aliter ; at malam causam quis coëgit eos habere ? Aug. M.DC.LVII . TO THE INDIFFERENT READER . I Present thee here with a full view of Errour 's vtmost , and of the Method it must necessarily take in it's Progress . First , weaknesses of reasoning & insincerity must endeavour to establish the groundles Fabrick ; which once discoverd , there is no way left but to fall into worse Paralogisms & Contradictions , and more open & inexcusable Falsifications . This is my charge in generall against my two Adversaries ; The Roll of their many faults in particular may bee collected out of the Index . If I have wrong fully imposed any thing on them , let mee sink in thy esteem ; if iustly , let them . I court no favour from thee but this that thou wouldest not give credit to this Reioynder of mine , read alone , but in company still of their Replies : sometimes also upon occasion reflecting back on D r Hammonds Book of Schism , my L d of Derry's iust Vindication of the Church of England , and Schism Di●arm'd : Consider , I put thee upon neither an uniust , unprofitable , unecessary not too troublesome a Method . Not uniust , since this gives thee a fair opportunity to ballance equally in thy thoughts what both alledge . Not unprofitable , since these two first Books of theirs being cry'd up for the best peeces which have come forth in these late dayes upon so concerning a subject , nothing can more largely contribute to thy Soul's repose than to bee satisfactorily conuinc't whether they stand or fall . Not unnecessary ; because without Method no secure satisfaction can bee had ; there being so many by-wayes incident to obstinate and disingenuous maintainers of their tenet , as of omitting to Answer things important , wauing the true point controverted , enlarging upon unconcerning passages , misrepresenting the true state of the Question ▪ Testimonies , and one anothers words , &c. That , without a ioynt-perusall of both party's writings , 't is impossible to receive any rationall satisfaction ; nor , indeed , any at all without a confident reliance upon the private Writer's word or Authority , than which kind of partiality nothing hath more endamag'd rationall Soul's . Nor yet is this Method too troublesome ; since , by seeing so numerous and such gross faults truly made good to bee in these their writings , thou mayst iustly hold thy self excused from reading the rest of their past or future works till they clear these their best to bee both convincing & true dealing ; Which , unles they perform effectively , I must challenge thy judgment and thy sincerity neither to give them assēt nor credit . I confess , indeed , that , while I intreat thee to make use of this Method , I have a private end of mine own ; knowing nothing could do mee more particular Right than this . Many sober & candid persons reading Schism Disarm'd ( not considering that what is spoken in opposition to truth must necessarily bee nonsence , and easy to bee shown such if the Discoverer of it vnderstands his own Grounds , bee true to his cause , and will speak out ) apprehended it impossible a Bishop and a Doctour , persons of so high repute for learning , should bee obnoxious all over to such innumerable faults and such incredible weaknesses ; and rather look't upon it as a peece of Wit , framing an Idea , as it were , of what humane frailty could possibly bee subject to , than that it was so indeed : Till , coming to compare it with it's Adversary-Books and scanning one in order to the other , they remain'd , as on the one side perfectly satisfy'd , so , on the other , extremely astonish't at the weaknes of Errour . I know good Natures are loath to think men to bee Monsters , that is , sencelesly irrationall or voluntarily insincere : But , I hope I shall gain so far upon their reasons without wronging their good Natures , ( for I concieve reason to bee their best and onely Nature ) as to consider that in what wee oppose one another , wee contradict one another , and the one part onely of the Contradiction can bee Truth ; wherefore the other part must necessarily bee Falshood , that is , non-sence . Hee then whose task it is to oppose the true side , must unavoidably talk non-sence if hee oppose it directly ; or else hee must prevaricate from his Duty in opposing something else in stead of it , and so bee very impertinent ; or bring against it mediums or Arguments which concern it not but look another way , and so become extremely weak : Or , lastly , if hee brings any necessary and enforcing Argument , which admitted would destroy the true position , it must infallibly ( since one Truth cannot quarrell with another ) bee a meer pretence or a Falsification , and so render the alledger insincere . Wherefore , since they and I , in what wee oppose one another , maintain contradictory position , whereof one side and one onely , must necessarily bee Right , 't is impossible but that one of us must either mistake in opposing the true point , and so manage our Discourse w●akly ; or wilfully neglect it and so play the Fool maliciously ; or go about to oppose it with a reall Truth , and so talk non-sence ; or , lastly , bring against it a fictitiously pretended Truth , and so prove a Falsifier ; and this , in every step of our Process . To these faults then , I say , one of us must necessarily remain obnoxious , and that continually ; which of us 't is , is left , Reader , to thy judgment ; onely bee so sincere as to give it due information in examining both together . To this end I have for the most part quoted the page and very line of D r Hammond ; the other is so diuided into short Sections , to which mine are correspondent , that there needed no such exactnes . One request more I have to offer thee that thou wouldst observe by the way as thou readest , the different Genius of my two Adversaries . The former would make a show of saying something by labouring with a multitude of little petty divisions , frequent intermixtures of Greek phrases and citations , smooth and plausible language , & the like quaint and pretty flourishes ; whereas , indeed , hee never sayes any thing severely to the purpose , nor ever speaks home ; but his Discourse is made up of such indifferent terms , so far from immediate , his Testimonies for the most part so totally unconcerning the Question , or , at least , so easily appliable to another sence , which yet hee presses not close to the point but leaves them still in their pure neutrality , that even the quickest eye stands in need of a Tube Optick to see from the Premisses to the conclusion , or from the Argument to the Question . Or rather , indeed , it would puzzle a good Logician , who understands how necessary connexion there ought to bee between the conclusion and Premisses , to pick an Argument out of the whole Book ; his notions are so dishevell'd and loosely scatter'd about after a meer orationall and declamatory fashion . The latter is more candid and speaks plain , and so falls into more direct Contradictions , which hee bolts out confidently . The one is of a wary nature and endeavours to cloak them that they may not show their faces ; the other is more down Right , puts a good countenance on them and bids them out face the world . The one makes his advantage from niaisery and shyness , the other from boldnes . The ones way of writing is properly characterd to bee shuffling , and packing the cards beneath the table ; the other's playing foul above board . Lastly , the one raises mists all over , and would steal common sence from a man , as it were , in the dusky twilight ; the other will needs rob you of it at noon-day . Nor do I intend by this frank censure to derogate from the iust opinion of learning due to them ; I doubt not but they are men of much reading : Onely I contend that their manner of Schollar-ship is an Historicall and Verball kind of Learning , and improperly call'd such , since to bee learned is to know , which none can do except those who have undeniable Grounds and can proceed with evident consequence upon those Grounds ▪ Either side may talk rhetorically , cite a Testimony , and by quibbling in the words show it plausibly sounding to his sence , but to speak consequently and convincingly belongs onely to them who have Grounds , that is Truth on their side , since there can bee no true Grounds nor solid reason for an Errour . Whence again since one of us must have Truth , and but one of us can have it , 't is manifest one of us onely can have Grounds , or Discourse consequently , the other must shuffle , falsify or talk verbally . At whose door the guilt lies is not my part to decide , but is wholly submitted to the Tribunal of the rightly inform'd Reader ; whose pardon I humbly beg for using the same words so often , as non-sence , shuffling , weaknes , &c. The frequent repetition of such unsavory Tautologies sounded no less ingratefull to my ears , being really much ashamed to name so often what they so often did . But I de●ire it may bee consider'd I was here to speak Truth not to vary phrases ; and , both for this , as also for the seeming harshnes of my Expressions , I crave leave to pose the Disliker with this Dilemma ; that , since it was my task to bee their accuser where I found them reproovable and Accusers are to call crimes by their own names , either they misdeseru'd or not ; If not , I am willing to bearthe censure of having added Passion to Calumny ; but if they were indeed thus blamable , then 't was a rationall carriage in order to maintain Truth to call their faults by their proper names how often soever they committed them . Nor are my Reprehensions ( frequent indeed , but never without iust occasion nor over proportion'd to the degree of their faultines ) at all intended to vent my anger towards the persons , but onely to breed in the Reader a due reflexion on their faults : And , if this bee ill Nature , I must avow it , that I hate a Contradiction with all my heart ; resenting it as a far greater iniury that any man should go about to disorder my Soul by imposing upon it a Falshood or Contradiction with stratagems and tricks ( especially in matters so concerning ) than if they should break my head or even endanger my life by betraying mee into an ambush ; and , I conceive that any one , who knows and prizes his Soul , will bee of my temper . I cannot but impute it to Art not to Vice that excellent Musicians whose ears are inur'd to the smoothest and best-proportion'd stroaks , should not endure to hear harsh Discords without some impatience : Neither in making my self the parallell to such skilfull Artists do I arrogate more to my self than onely this that I have had the happines to light on an excellent Master of reason , who is able to tune the thoughts of a rationall Soul to the perfectest harmony ; and that it pleased God to give mee such an unprejudic'd sincerity and such a competent degree of capacity as would permit and enable mee to understand Truths , in themselves as evident as that two and three make five , when the terms were clearly proposed in an orderly connexion , and the meanings or notions made plain by Definitions . May I intreat this fair opinion from the Protestant Reader that hee make not my smartnes against mine Adversaries an Argument that I am a Lover of Dissension or a Desirer to keep the Discord still on foot between us . I protest with all sincerity there neither is nor can bee any man living who more cordially longs for or shall more industriously ( to his power ) endeavour an Vnion between all those who lay claim to Christ's name than my self , as those who know my heart best can testify ; and that I would willingly consecrate all my studies , sacrifice all my interest , nay even my life it self , to such an happy end . But , on the other side , since an Vncertainty in the Rule and Root of faith is diametrically opposit to an Vnion in Faith ( for how shall rationall Soul's center when they know not where to meet , nor have Grounds to bind them to a ioynt-assent , as without Evidence of Authority there can bee none ) hence I shall hope to have deserued well from all rationall Lovers of Vnion in impugning vigorously and disgracing this tenet of Vncertainty , the Seed of all Heresies , Schisms & Dissension , and the Bane of Vnion ; which pestilent doctrine hath got such root in our poor country by two or three plausible pens , that aswell Religion as Philosophy amongst many excellent Wits is reduced to meer Scepticism . For this end I have , upon all fitting occasions throughout this whole Treatise , inculcated a certainty in the sayd Rule of faith and an Evidence of that certainty ; to fix by those many little dints a strong impression in the Reader 's mind that such a thing there is , to bee found by those who with a iust and impartiall diligence seek it . And , if any in this so noble an enquiry will venture to take my word ( and I have this advantage that I speak by experience ) I shall send them no long iourney but onely address their study to those two little Treatises of Rushworth's Dialogues and the Apology for Tradition . This Principle then being such that , it once establish't all the rest will infallibly follow , and without it no Ground of agreement can possibly bee expected , I was obliged even out of my love to Vnion to maintain it inviolable by all means which Truth could iustify to bee lawfull , and by consequence what ever is held upon that Rule , as is the substance of the Authority I defend . In other points , where the certainty of the Rule and Root of faith is not concern'd , the Protestants shall find mee alwayes proceed with the greatest condescendence and moderation that Prudence and Charity can dictate to the most indifferent Mind . As for my smiling upon occasion at my Adversary's toyes and affected weaknesses , let the Reader fancy throughly my circumstances by perusing both Books together , and hee shall see clearly it had been most improper to return those passages any other Answer : Or , if there bee any so wedded to a severer humour that they will not allow circumstances their due , but think that such kind of carriage is not to bee used at all in Controversies about Faith , I shall send them to Tertullian , the rigidest and severest in points of this Nature among all the Ancients , for better information . If you find ( saith hee , writing against the Adversaries of faith ) in my Book some passages which move one to Laughter , 't is because the matter it self occasions it . There are many things which deserve to bee thus mock't at , lest by combating them seriously you should signify they are of weight . Nothing is more due to Vanity than Laughter ; and this carriage is proper to Truth , to whom it belongs to laugh , because shee is naturally pleasant ; and to exult over her Enemies , because shee is secure of the victory . Care , indeed , is to bee taken lest the mirth bee base and unworthy of Truth ; but , otherwise , when one can fittingly make advantage by it , 't is a Duty to use it . Thus hee . To which I shall onely adde these few words of S. Austin , whose Spirit , though all composed of charity and sweetnes , breaks out into this smart demand . Vvho is so bold as to say that Truth should come forth unarm'd when it combats falshood , and that it is lawfull for the Enemies of Religion to fright the faithfull with great words and inveigle their Fancies with witty conciets , but that Catholikes ought to write in a dull and drowsy stile , fit for nothing but to make the Readers fall asleep . This is all I have to apologize for , except onely for the long delay of this Rejoynder ; the reason whereof is too well known to have been it's miscarriage a twelve-moneth ago & the difficulties since in bringing it to light in a forrain country . Vvhich also pleads for an excuse of it's many lapses in spelling and other frequent little mistakes , occasion'd by the Composer's being a perfect stranger to our language . The grosser faults shall bee noted in the Errata at the end , which I desire the Reader to correct ere hee address himself to peruse the Book , in regard one of mine Adversaries did mee so little Iustice as to cavill heretofore at a mistake of the Printer's in Schism Disarm'd , though it were rectify'd very carefully in the Errata . This done , I leave the indifferent Reader to the fruit of his own Industry , and to that success which the force of Truth is wont to effect in an impartiall and sincere Mind . SCHISM DISPATCHT . FIRST PART . Containing some Preparatory grounds decisive of the whole Controversy ▪ and a refute of Dr. Hammonds Defence of his first three Chapters . Sect. I. The occasion of the Disarmers writing , and his writing in such a manner . Dr. Hammonds weaknes in imputing contumeliousnes . WHat Mr. Hammond professed of himself , that his chief design is to enjoy calm and peacefull thoughts , and to retire from polemicall engagements , is no lesse the wish of his friendly Disarmor ; who had permitted him to enjoy his Halcyon sollitarinesse , and to ●leep securely in a whole skin had not himself ounded the Allarm and made the Onset ; of which , though the latter were very feeble , yet the former being full of noise in the mouths of all the Docteurs friends , it awaken'd him from his quiet silence into a necessary resistance . He saw the most in violable , the most long●settled , the most sacred , and most universally●acknowledged Government the sun ever beheld , despited and wronged : he saw , by consequence , the eternall and infaillible rule of faith , in which was fundamentally interessed the salvation of mankind , broken and disannull'd , by the rejecting that Government which it recommended to us , as the Safeguard of our Faith : he saw his dearest Mother the holy Catholick Church Christs sacred Spouse , by relation to wihch onely he could hope for any title to salvation , abused and vilify'd : he saw his dear Countrymen run distractedly into an hundred sorts of Sects , all springing originally from that grand one of the schismaticall Protestant Congregation : he observed how the Protestant party , though of late not reprehended much by Catholick writers ( hoping their own vexatious divisions would at length give them understanding ) were yet so unseasonably clamorous , as then most to plead their innocence when their fault of Schim was most palpable , and God's severe correction of it most visible upon them : Lastly , he took particular notice how one Dr. Hammond , a private man , had bent his weak utmost to continue and propagate that Schism , so uniuersally destructive to Government , Faith , God's Church , his Countrey ; and perceiving by the cry of ●is followers that his Book was likely to contribute much to this great harm , he thought these motives sufficient prouocations to make the confutation of that Treatise the prentisage of his endeavours in Controversie . Rationall therefore and convenient was the Disarmers determination to write , and to write against Dr. Hammond . The manner then of his writing comes next to be examined , which will not down with the Doctours stomach , ( and indeed it is no wonder if those who are resolved not to mend do not love to be reprehended ; ) whereupon he has by self imagin'd applications of some Texts , voted here poor S. W. whom he sayes ( pag. 2. ) he has taken in the flagrant fact of abusing him , to be in reality no Christian , a detestable person , under the censures of the Church , nay ipso jure , ( saith he ) excommunicate ; in a speciall sort one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , unritghteous , and without repentance uncapable of going to heaven ; and lastly ▪ to be none of those Saints who , clave non errante , ( saith the Dr. ) shall judge the world . A sad case that no punishment lesse then Hell must be poor S. W's doom , because he laid open the weaknesse of Dr. Hommonds defense of a pernicious cause , after the manner that such a a defence deserved And I wonder he had no more Charity then not tho be afraid lest he should drive S. W. into despair of his salvation , by denouncing and preaching to him such horrid judgements for writing against the Saints , and using ( as , pag. 3. Mr. Hammond sayes ) that very dialect which the obstinate Iews used towards the true Prophets of God. But first he does me right in acknowledging that it was not I who gave him his Bill of Fare , to which I may with truth adde , that I not so much as knew of it : Yet he thinks he has got a notable advantage against me , from my own confession , that my blows were rude , and mine Adversary civil where as , I used both those phrases as an objection of the Readers , as is most palpable ; and had I used them , the rudenesse of blows argues not that they were not just , since none doubts , but Malefactours are very rudely , yet most justly whipt ; and the courteous epithet of civil , deny'd not but the oyl in his tongue was accompany'd with venome in his heart , and so made it more necessary to discover that , whose onely advantage it was , to lurk undiscoverable under the smooth outsde of a fair-languag'd courtesie . The twitchings by the beard ( which he reiterates to make his Reader smile , ) is indeed something too rude a carriage if understood in the downright sence as he seems to take it ; but since I spoke-it onely in an Allegery , and in order to his wearing a vizard which I pluck'd off , let him but acknowledge that I found him attired in such a mask ( to which the other words related ) and I am contented to be thou●t so unreasonably uncivil as to pluck it off so rudely . Next , with what Logick does he huddle together those testimonies out of Scripture for S. W's pasport to Hell , unlesse he could evidence that they were particularly appliable to him ? Are words , which in their own nature found even contumeliously , so perfectly damnable that no circumstance can render them inculpable ; or at least venial , if not necessary , or convenient ? for the Dr. maintains the generall Thesis in such à manner , as if one taken in such a flagrant fact , is long ago condemned to hell and disinherited from his right to heaven . p. 2. and 3. What becomes then of good S. Iohn Baptist , who called the ill-prepared Iews a generation of vipers ? what of S. Paul who ( Acts 13. 8. ) called Elymas , son of the devil , full of all treaechery and deceit , enemy of all justice , &c. What of our Saviour , who called Herod , Fox , the prophaners of the Temple , Theeves , the Scribes and Pharisees Hypocrites ? And , to come nearer our present circumstances , what will become of Blessed S. Polycarp , ( disciple to S. Iohn the Evangelist , the tenderest recommender of Charity to his disciples of all the Apostles ) who yet meeting with an heretick , who began complementally to insinuate into acquaintance with nonn agnoscis nos ? Do not you know us ? rejected his courtesy with this rude language , Agnosco primogenitum Di boli , yes , I know thee to be the first begotten of the devil . What of S. Iude , who calls hereticks clouds without water , autumnal trees , twice dead , rooted out , waves of the raging sea foaming out their own confusion . Lastly , to come yet nearer home , what shall we think of Gods Church , whose custome it ever was to anathematis and curse all hereticks , and of S. Paul who bids anathema even to an Angel from heaven , if he should preach false doctrine ? I ask now , are not all these expressions , revileing , contumelious , rude , and ( which the Doctour most resents ) beard-twitching language , if taken in themselves ? Must then all this good company be deem'd detestable , unrighteous , excommunicate , and blindly pack'd all away to hell together , for revilers , contumelious , &c. because they gave such hard language ? The texts alledged by Mr. H. are very generall , laying about them blindly and indifferently at Friends and Foes ; and he allowes them here no exception at all . Or , if he does , as I hope he wil rather then involve such persons in his uniuersall censure ; then the reason why he exempts these must be , because the words , though taken in their own indifferency without any application , are most highly contumelious , yet , spoken to such persons as hereticks , men publickly noxious , the common good concernd ' made the private person's repute not considerable : and so ( the misdesert of the persons justifying the truth of the words ) they sounded now a laudable and necessary zeal , which in other circumstances had been contumely and inte●perate passion . Whence followes , first , that I am not excommunicate ▪ or in the state of damnation , for having used contumelious words , since the use of them , if taken simply in it self , is not impious , as has beenshown : but for having used them against Dr. H. Vnhappy I who was not aware how sacred a person my adversary was , ere I undertook to deal with him ! Next , it follows that , if Dr. H. evidence not his cause to be no heresy , and himself no maintainer of it , all those former harsh expressious used against hereticks are his due , and without scruple of sin , might be given him by S. W. who had undertaken as a Catholick writer to lay open his faultinesse . Let any man but read the Doctours first chapter of Schism , and take notice what harsh-sounding characters the Fathers give to that vice ; and then let him tell me what a publick propagatour of Schim may deserue . Wherefore , unlesse he makes his evidence good , S. W. may also justly retort upon him the charge of contumeliousnesse ; since he has no where in his whole Book used towards him such rude expressions , as the Dr. hath in his first chapter by his censorious self-explication of Scripture loaded upon him , of detestable , impious , &c onely Mr. Hammond calumniates in a preaching manner , and out of Scripture , which makes the well-couch'd contumely lesse discernable . Thirdly , it were very easie for S. W. using the Doctours method , to gather out of Scripture all the vigorous words and severe execrations against the wicked ; and then , by his own voluntary explication and application , clap them all upon the Dr. : as for example , that of Curse ye Meroz , &c. and then say that by Meroz is meant such as Mr. H. who writes against God's Church . This , I say , were as easie for the Disarmer : But he cannot but hate that in himself , which he nauseates at in another : He knows very wel , and hopes the world , now grown wiser , plainly discerns it almost as impossible certainly to demonstrate truth by clashing together meer wordish testimonies ; as to strike fire by the weak collision of two pieces of Wax , which easily yield at every stroke : and therefore makes account it is his greatest misfortune to tamper with an Adversary who trades in wares of no higher value , then onely , Reusner like , in fragments pick'd out of severall Authours , and then stitch'd together by voluntary transitions into a book . What is hitherto said is onely to show , that every using of language , even in its own nature contumelious , is fat from being a sin ; and therefore that S. W. may yet ( by God's grace ) hope to escape hell fire ▪ unlesse the Dr. can evidence that his cause is neither Heresie nor Schisme ; since , if it be , it remain'd very lawful for him to treat the publike propagatour of it according to his desert , as has been shown . But S. W. disclaims , in behalf of his book , any such language towards Dr. H. A contumely ( I conceive ) notes some personall and morall fault in another : did I note any in him ? Indeed , as a writer ; he was mine and the Churches Adversary ; and as such it is most irrationall I should spare him , when I saw my advantage . Do Duellers ( if their quarrell be serious ) use to spare their enemy , and not hurt him in that place where they see him unguarded ? It were madnesse then to expect , that , where my adversary writ insincerely , I should not shew him insincere ; where blasphemously , blasphemous ; where weakly , weak ; where ridiculously , ridiculous , Vpon such advantage offer'd I ought to have had no courtesie for him ; unlesse I would prevaricate from my task , and betray the cause I had undertaken to defend , by a complemental connivence . If then I might upon his desert give him those characters , I hope it is necessarily consequent that words must be allowed me to expresse them ; nor ought the lawfull help of Rhetorick be interdicted me , to expresse them home . Now , if all art of Rhetorick gives it , that ridiculous things ought to be exprest ironically , let Dr. H. blame the art so unfriendly to him , and his own weaknesse which intituled him to such expressions ; not S. W. who did but as art , nature , and reason required . If any yet object that I was still excessive in the manner of those expressions ; I answer that I shall bewilling to confesse the fault , unlesse I manifested him equally excessive in the manner of deserving them : otherwise , as long as the proportion holds , I shall in reason account my self blamelesse . As a writer then against God's Church , D. H. ought in reason to expect no mercy at S. W's hands , but rigorous justice onely : nor is this by consequence contumeliousnesse , but the proper treaty which reason grants , religion avoucheth , and the circumstances make necessary . Now that all the pretended revilings of S. W. are no other the Dr. shall . inform the Reader , complaining here pag. 2. that the Publisher of the book hath solemny annext a list of the contumelies , three and thirty picz'd out by specialty , &c. since then these , as he sayes , are the speci all or chief contumelies , not to trouble the Reader with the whole Roll , we will onely take notice of the first of them , which is this ; How the Dr. of . Divinity has forgot his accidence . This is the first of those special contumelies , which Dr. H. here compares to Goliah's cursing of David ; to Rabshakeh's reproches ; to the king of Moab's language against Israel . This is that in the flagiant fact of which ( as he expresses it ) being taken , the Apostle hath therefore long ago pronounced sentence against me , that no Christian must eat with me , hence it is that I have onely the name , not the reality of a Christian , am a detestable person , ipso jure excommunicated in a special manner one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( as he pedantizes it ) so as unreformed ( that is , without repentance ) I shall not inherit the kingdome of heaven , and do but flatter and deceive my self if I hope I may ; and lastly , am none of those Saints who ( clave non errante ) shall judge the word . Thus are poor Catholicks poasted to hell by couples ( for I suppose the Romish Factour must bear me company ) without bale or mainprise , for manifesting that Dr. H. had forgot his Accidence . You wits of the Vniuersities beware and take example by the fatall Catastrophe of S. W. when you write or dispute do not accuse your Adversary of inconsequence in his argument , mistakes in criticizing , sol●ecismes , or the like ; you see upon how ticklish a point your salvation stands ; if you do , the Apostle hath pronounced long ago that no man may eat with you , hence you are specially contumelious , excommunicated , no Christians , detestable , in speciall sort unrighteous , and do but flatter your selves , if you hope to go to heaven without true and hearty repentance , as Dr. H. hath evidently prov●d out of Scripture . The rest of those special contumelies ( as he calls them ) are deductions from his own erroneous reasoning , or interpreting Scripture , from his self contradictions , his mistakes , &c. and therefore being onely aimed at his Book ? orat Himself as the Writer of it , were necessary to be taken notice of by his Disarmer ; and consequently not falling under the notion of contumelies , nor deserving so many censures in Greek . If Mr. H. yet kindly complain , that my words were too harsh ; my answer is , the very names we give to great faults are harsh words , nor can they possibly be other wise ; so as he must either suppose me so supine as not to take notice of his faultinesse , or else I must suppose him more innocent , ( that is , deny mine own eyes : ) and then , winking at his grosse and pernicious errours , substitute courtesy to zeal , and instead of confuting , fall to complement . Now how can any man in reason imagine I should not mention his greatest faults , that is , not use harsh words ? For either Dr. H. knew of them , or not : if not , it was his interest and my charity to let him know them ; which , I think , cannot be done without naming them : If he knew of them , and yet writ them , it was a more necessary charity , and more concerning the publick , and dearest interest of mens salvations ( waving all private respect to the person ) to let all men know his false dealing , that they might beware of him , as of a wolf in sheeps clothing . Let himself chuse which side he pleases , I shall hold my self sufficiently cleared by either . Nay , rather I have reason to make a counter-complaint of the Dr. for , I no where in my whole Book , branded him with the appelation of a detestable person , which this pattern of piety gives me : though my pretence might avouch-it , being to defend the rights of the Church I live in : whereas his intemperance proceeds from a vindication of his private selfe from the contumelies ( forsooth ) he hath received ; and to aggravate his fault the more , he cannot be content to use his own words to expresse his gravity affecting passion ; but , to make his railing more authoritative ( as one said of a precise puritanical Dame , that shee never cudgeld her Mayd but in Scripture-phrase ) so St. Paul must needs prophecie long ago of my Excommunication , be revived to pronounce it in Dr. H's name , and for solemnity sake , in Greek too : Yet after the Dr. hath been so hihg in the Pulpit against contumelies , he is become himself so mean an Auditor , as to accuse me flatly of falsifications , ( with what reason shall be seen hereafter ) calumnies certainly , if not avouch'd ; yet all sounds zeal in him , which in another would be plain contumelie : Should we desire St. Paul now to Excommunicate Dr. H. hee would presently silence-us , by assuring'us , that St. Paul never meant harm to him , but to S. W. onely , so secure a thing it is to be a dexterous Scripturist . Sect. 2. That the certainty of Faith ( and that onely ) justly grounds zeal ; and obliges the Propugner of that Faith to an impartial plainnesse with its Adversary , as taken-under that notion , THese ordinary Considerations , and obvious to common sence , I have offer'd to the Reader , to let him see this manner of Writing in confuting such Authors , is very rational , if the cause deserves any zeal , and the truth of the thing makes good what is said . One reason more I shall adde , which I recommend to the attentive consideration of the Reader , it being indeed the fundamental ground why such a treaty should be necessary in controversies about Faith , against the deemed adversaries thereof . And this is no other than the certainty of Faith it self . But lest the Dr. should mistake me ( as his custome is ) to beg the question , by supposing our Faith certain , I professe my selfe 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 regula●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 kno● 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 m●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 cōpared 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 own their reason , and bring it home to it self , rather than suffer it to wander in a pathlesse wildernesse of words , and think it an endeavour more worthy a rationall soul to weave well compacted Treatises by evident connexion of terms , than fruitlesly to stand picking thrums-ends out of overworn garments ; & when they have done , scarce know what colour they are of , or how to knit them handsomely together without the motley of non-sence . Thus much to give account of my obligation not to favour Mr. H. while he impugnes that Faith which I esteem most certain , and most concerning . Now , for his person , as it comes to me under any other notion , than of a writer against God's Church , I profess with all sincerity to honour and love it in the measure which reason requires . As a member of the civil commonwealth I live in , I bear him a civil respect ; I hear he is much a Gentleman and very courteous : in return to which , if it be my good fortune to meet him , I shall be as ready to serve him in what may not concern my cause , and do him as much civility , as I would to most Gentlemen in England . According to the degree of scholarship I find in him , I shall candidly allow him a proportionable honour , and shall not envy it him , though mine Adversary , even in his absence , amongst mine own Friends . I value-him for his skill in Greek , a language I much love my self , and think it a great ornament to a scholar , if he know how to use it seasonably , and not wantonly shew it upon all , or rather no occasion ; in which Mr. H. hath very mvch diminish't himself , giving his Readers a fair title to suspect him either of too much vanity in that , or emptiness in other knowledges . I applaud his unwearied industry , half of which employed in a rationall way by some strong brain , might be the happy Mother of many rare productions . His looking into such variety of Authours deserves also it's commendation ; since testimonies have their degree of probation allowed them by their Governesse Reason ; that is , according to the degree of knowledge ( or Authority subsequent to it ) found in the Testifier , and the clearnesse from ambiguity found in the words alledged : nay rather I should esteem him more for this than all the rest , were this way of testimonies in it self much estimable , since his chief and almost onely talent lies in this ; which furnishes him with sufficient store of such declamatory proofs , and enables him to bring some kind of testimony against any thing that can be opposed , as the nature of such sleight quotation-argumenrs uses to be ; for indeed what so absurd , but a testimony may be produc't , even from the best Authours , seeminly favouring it , as we experience daily in Scripture ? Lastly and more especially , I acknowledge I am much his for the sakes of some Friends common to him and me ; which ( as no man with more veneration honours that s●cred relation of minds , than my self ) doth in a manner mediately ally me to him , and makes me desirous to flatter my self , that the agreeing in a third , should make us not disagree amongst our selves . All these motives give him no mean place in my thoughts , and esteem : yet all these temporall considerations vanish , and he straight becomes again indifferent to me , when a quarrell about Eternity of mankind's blisse or misery is to be controverted betwen us ; and my deemed certainty of my Cause , which concludes him by consequence certainly pernicious , obliges me in Conscience to confute , nay even disgrace him , as far as he shall be found the promoter of a pestilent and soul-ruining Tenet . Although I must confesse withall , I am sorty , that by is own fault he occasion'd this conscientious engagement in me ; for had there been no infection spread , there had needed no Antidote . What I have said here was to satisfy some whom I found much mistaken in the manner how Controversies ought to be treated by a Catholick ; not considering that Courtesy is a vertue onely in fit circumstances , otherwise but an impertinent flattery or affectation , and in a serious controversy about faith , whose both Concernment and Certainty justify zeal , and make it necessary , as improper , as for souldiers who are to try the field about their Kings and Countreys interests , to hold their sword in one-hand , and hat in the other ; complement , and kisse their hands to one another , instead of striking , or by any unnaturall mixture of both make a gallant show of a mock fight , preferring the care of court esy before the losse of their Cause . For the satisfaction of these I have Apologiz'd thus far , not in relation to Mr. H. The proper way to answer his weak proofs out of Scripture here , were to gather by the help of an honest Concordance all the harsh words in the Scriptures spoken by our Saviour or his Saints , and apply them voluntarily against him , as he has done against me ; at which if he repine , then to ask , why my interpretation should not be as valid as his . And with good-reason too , should I daing him onely a reply in this method , for why should not an answer of any thing serve to a quodlibeticall objection ? Sect. 3. How unfortunate and weak Dr. H. is , in quoting S. Hierome against the Disarmer for writing plainly His crafty and discourteous Calumny . AFter the testimonies from Scripture blindly levell'd at S. W. followes in the sixt Paragraph , that it was a deviation from art to treat him thus unkindly ( to which I have answered above ) and that S. Hierome notes it as a great errour in Helvidius , that he took railing for eloquence . Wherefore since Mr. H. chuses S. Hierome for his Patron against S. W. in this point of the manner of writing controversy , let us stand to his ward and example : and see how he treated Vigilantius , Dr. Hs. and the Protestants Forefather in the point of denying veneration to Holy Reliques ; and wether he stood upon courtesy , when he made account he had a just occasion to shew his zeal . In his Epistle to Riparius , the first he writ against Vigilantius , he hath these words : O praecidendam ling●am , &c. O tongue worthy to be cut out by Physicians , or rather , oh frantick head to be cured by them , &c. Ego vidi hoc aliquando portentum ; I once saw this prodigious monster . Tacita me forsan cogitatione repre hendas , &c. Perhaps thou mayest reprehend me in thy silent thought , why I inveigh against one absent : I confesto thee my passion , I cannot hear so great sacriledge with patience . For I have read of the lance of Phinees , the austere rigour of Elias , the zeal of Simon of Cananee , the severity of Peter killing Ananias and Sapphira , the constancy of Paul , who condemned to eternall blindnesse Elymas the Sorcerer , resisting the wayes of our Lord. Piety in Gods behalf is not cruelty . Nor by consequence is zeale in behalf of Faith railing ; if that Faith be held to have certain grounds ; which onely can justify zeal , and make it discreet . But to proceed . His second Epistle against Vigilantius begins thus . Multa in orbe monstra &c Many monsters have been begotten in the world : we read in Esaias of Centaurs and Sirens , Screech-owls and Onocrotals : Iob describes Leviathan and Behemoth in mysticall language : the fables of the Poets tell of Cerberus , and the Stymphals , and the Erymanthian Boar , of the Nemean Lion , of Chimera , ad many-headed Hydra : Virgil describes Cacus ; Spain hath brought to light three-shap't Geryon ; France onely had no Monsters . Suddenly there arose Vigilantius , or more truly Dormitantius , who with an unclean spirit fights against the spirit of Christ , and denies that the sepulchres of the martyrs are to be venerated . Insanum caput ! mad or frantick fellow ! Sanctas reliquias Andreae , Lucae & Timothei , apud quas Daemones rugiunt , & inhabitatores Vigilantij illorum se sentire praesentiam confitentur , The holy reliques of Andrew , Luke and Timothy , at which the Devils roare , and the possessours of Vigilantius confesse that they feel their presence . Tu vigilans dormis , & dormiens scribis : Thou sleepest waking , and writest sleeping . De barathro pectoris tui coenosam spurcitiam evomens ; vomiting dirty filth from the hell of thy breast . Lingua viperea ! Viperine tongue ! Spiritus isle immundus , qui haec te cogit scr●bere , saepe hoc vilissimo tortus est pulvere , immo hodieque torquetur ; & qui iu te plagas dissimula● , in aliis confitetur : That unclean spirit which compells thee to write these things , has oftentimes been tortured with this contemptible dust ( meaning the Holy Reliques , which Vigilantius styled thus ) yea and is now adayes still tortur'd ; and he who in thee dissembles his wounds , confesses them in others . But let us come to the Treatise our Adversary cites , and see how roughly S. Hierome handles Helvidius ; whom Dr. H. would have him accuse in the same treatise of the self-same fault . Sed●ne te quasi lubricus anguis evolvas , testimoniorum stringendus es vinculis , ne quer●lus sibiles ; but lest , like a stippery snake , thou disentangle thy self , thou must be bound with the cords of testimonies , that thou mayest not querulously hiss : Imperitissime hominum ! siliest of men ! Nobilis es factus in scelere , Thou art ennobled & made famous by thy wickednesse . Quamvis sis hebes , dicere non a●debis ; although thou beest dull or blockish , yet thou darest not affirm it . Risimus in te proverbinm , Camelum vidimus saltantem : We have laught at the old proverb in thee , We have seen a dancing Camel ▪ &c. Where we see . First , that if S. Hierome's verdict exprest in his own manifold example be allowable , whom Dr. H hath chosen for Vmpire in his matter , t is very lawfull and fitting to give the Adversaries of Faith their full desert in controversies concerning Faith , and not to spare them as long as the truth of their faultinesse can justify the rigorous expressions . Neither let Dr. H. objet that I beg the question , in supposing him an Adversary of the true faith : for to put the matter indifferently , and so as may please even the Protestants them selves , either Dr. H's cause is false , and then 't is laudable to use zeal against him , who perniciously endeavours to mantain a falsehood ; or else it is true , & then he deserves as great a reprehension who abuses his cause by going about to defend it by such wilfull falsifications , and so many frauds and weaknesses , as he hath been discovered . Whence it appears that the indifferent Reader is not to consider at all , whether the expressions sound harshly or no , but whether they be true or no ; for if they be , then that person will be found in reason to deserve reprehension , be the cause he defends true or false , if he defend it either senselesly or insincerely . Secondly , these harsh expressions of S. Hieromes being due to Dr. H's forefather Vigilantius , for denying veneration to holy Reliques , are due likewise upon that onely score to Dr. H. and the Protestant writers , who deny the same Point : what then may we imagine the Protestants deserve for filling up the measure of their forefathers sinnes , by denying the onely certain Rule of Faith , Vniversall Tradition , the former governmēt of God's Church , almost all the Sacraments , and many other most important points besides , and of much greater concernment than is this of venerating holy Reliques ? Thirdly , the Reader shall find no where in Schism Disarm'd such harsh language given to Dr. H. or which ( if taken in it's own nature ( sounds so contumeliously as this of S. Hieromes against Vigilantius is ; frantick fellow , monster , prodigious monster ▪ possest with the Devill , possest with an unclean Spirit , snake , famous for wickednesse , blockhead , &c. My harshest words in comparison of these are moderate and ciuil ▪ mine are smiling Ironies , his are stern and bitter Sarcasmes , and if I whipt Dr. H. gently with rods , S. Hierome wihpt his forefather Vigilantius with Scorpions . Whence followes that I am to be thank't by Dr. H. for my moderation , not excommunicated for my excesse in reprehending him , since all those more severe expressions far out-vying mine , were his due as he is in the same fault with Vigilantius , besides what accrues to him out of later titles ; and this by the judgement of S. Hierome , the very Authour he quotes for himself in this point . Fourthly , what a miserable weaknesse is it to quote this Father against me for using harsh language , who himself uses far harsher ? which evidences that if this Fathers authority and example be of weight in this point , as Dr. H. grants by bringing him against me for that purpose , then the roughnesse of the language is not railing or reprehensible , if taken alone or abstracted from the cause ( since Dr. H. will not say that this holy Father thought that manner of language railing or reprehensible in himself ) which showes that Dr. H's first Chapter , fighting against the words as abstracted from the cause , as much accuses S. Hierome as me ; nay much more , as his words exprest more fully his justly-caused zeal , than my more moderate pen did . Fifthly , abstracting from the cause , and impugning the manner of expression onely , as Dr. H. does , who sees not that the Heretick Vigilantius might with the same reason as he , have entitled the first Chapter of his Reply to S. Hierome in the like manner as he did , to wit thus , Of Hieroms style and contumelies : The Scriptures , sentence on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; the Character belonging thereto ? Then in the Chapter it self have call'd S Hierome's plain discovery of his faults , scoffes and contumelies , have told him that he had just title to the scorners chair , that his writing against him , was like Goliahs cursing of David , Rabshakels reproaches against Israel , that the Apostle had long ago pronounced sentence against him , that none should eat with him , that he was in reality no Christian , a detestable person , faln under the censures of the Church , ipso jure excommunicate , in a speciall sort one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , unrighteous , that he shall not inherit the Kingdome of Heaven , that this was the very Dialect which the Iewes used toward the true Prophets of God , that it is against the practice of S. Michael and against the spirit of weeknesse , peace and long-suffering , &c. As if every heretick , nay every malefactour in the world , could not say the same to their just reprehenders and punishers : or as if peace and long-suffering were to be used at all times , even when we see we suffer divine Truth to be injurd , and souls run headlong and blind to Hell after such blind guides . Every one , Mr. H. can preach patience , peace and long suffering , quote scripture , intermix Greek words pedantically ; but none can speak sense but they who have truth on their side . It must be judged then by the strength of the reasons you bring to clear your selves from schism , whether you deserved those reprehensions from your Adversary or no , and not from what your quodlibeticall vein can preach to us . And till you bring evident ones , I shall ever think that S. Hierome ( your own Authours here ) preacht as good doctrine as you in a place lately cited , when he told us with many instances that non est crudelitas pro Deo pietas . Sixthly , what is it to me that S. Hierome noted it as an errour in Helvidius , that he took railing for eloquence , unlesse he can prove that I took it so too ? He knowes I pretend that justice , truth , and the necessity of my cause , warranted , nay obliged me to be so plain with him . I pretend no Eloquence in an ordinary controversy ; neither did I think that confuting Dr. H. would be such a rare businesse , that it would be worth the pains of a rhetoricall filing . Lastly , to shew more and more the weaknesse of this Dr. S. Hieromes words of Helvidius are these ; loquacitatem facundiam existimat , he thinks babling to be eloquence . But the good Dr. whom any semblance of a testimony contents , construes loquacitas ( wordishness ) to be railing ; as if empty pulpit-beatres , who talk two hours without a word of solidnesse , were therefore all railers . I doubt that ere we come to an end of this Treatise , Loquacity , that is , voluntary talking wordishly without a syllable of sense , will be so perfectly shown to be D. H's proper and peculiar fault , that his own words will evince it without the help of Saint Hierome . And thus hath Dr. H. sped in quoting this holy , learned , and truly zealous Father for the Patron of his affected courte●y and civility ; and a pattren for S. W. to follow in writing Controversies about Faith. I once hoped Mr. H. and I should have parted very good Friends from this first Section , notwithstanding the contumelies which , contrary to his own grounds , he hath heaped upon me in it . But he hath so purposely counterfeited a mistake , that he might by that means fix a ●ly c●●umny upon a worthy person , that Charity and pitty must both be summon'd up to pardon him in it ▪ I had upon occasion of the Evidence of our Churches Infallibility in my Schim Disaerm'd pag. 20. told him , he might to his amazement see it in that incomparable Treatise of Rushworth's Dialogues , vindicated from all possible confute by that excellent Apology for it , writ by the learned pen of Mr Thomas White . What does Mr. H ? he tells us that S. W. sayes , his arrowes are beyond all possible confute ; meaning that S. W. the Authour of Schism Disarm'd , was the same with the Authour of the Apology for Tradition ) though I am certainly inform'd that he knows S. W. to be another person ) and reports again afterwards the same phrase to the same purpose . Now by this one project he gaines two advantages : First he honours himself with making the world believe he had so worthy an Adversary as the Authour of that Apology : next , when he has done this , he dishonours his pretended Adversary , as the vainest person in the world , by intimating that himself in Schism Disa●m'd gave himself such an high character . Whereas first , I assure Dr. H. it is in vain to hope for such an honour as is an Answer from that miracle of with and learning ▪ it is worthy him to write grounds , not to stand replying upon meer words ; to answer such weak skirmishers is a task more proper for one of the meanest and youngest of his scholars , a very slender participation of his solid knowledge renders one able to encounter with the Apuleian bladders of aiery testimonies , the victory over which can onely entitle one to Domitian's triumph , and need more the Flyflap of a Dictionary , or turning over leaves to combat them , then the acuter and stronger sword of reason . As for the second , which is the sly calumny of that worthy person's feigned self-praise , built onely on Mr. H's wilfull mistake , I fear the intimater of it will lose much credit by so ignoble a detraction of such a person ; since his profoundest humility , of equall depth with his knowledge , secures him as much from desiring praise , as his known worth from needing it ; every one freely yielding him those excellent commendations , which his Detractours will needs have him , for want of good neighbours , give himself . He tells us in the close , that Divines are allowed to have skill in Symptomes . What Symptomes are these , and of what ? that the profusest la●ghter is the worst indication of the affections of the spleen , quoting Irenaeus & Galen . I ask , suppose Irenaeus had also said that a gravely-affected melancholy , extraordinarily representing sanctity and piety , and a professing an earnest desire to speak the full truth of God ( Answer p. 18. ) and yet in the mean time falsifying most palpably , purposely , and inexcusably , is the worst indication of a pharisaicall hypocrisie ; were not this more competible to Mr. H. then the other is to me ? I hope then he is answered , at least in as good a manner as such toyes deserve . And ere I come to finish this Treatise , I flatter my self , that even Dr. H's own Friend● will acknowledge that such is his carriage , and manner of writing , unlesse a strong prepossession of partiality have blinded them , and shut the eyes both of their mind and body ; since to make good this my charge against him , little more then the common use of the latter is exacted of the Reader . Sect. 4. Dr. H's methodicall Charity , represented in his totally mistaking the common sense of a plain Epistle to the Reader : with a second sly Calumny of the same strain , and other weaknesses . HIs railing against me in the first section , which he calls his ( Answ . p. 5. ) obligation of Charity , brings him methodically ( for all is Charity and method in him ) to andeavour my conviction , by examining the account I gave of the rudenesse of my blowes ; which though sufficiently cleared already , yet I think my self obliged to my cause , to take notice of this methodicall charity & convincing reason that the Reader may see what weak Patrons Schism hath ; and that if Mr. H. be most grievously mistaken in a plain Epistle to the Reader , there is little hopes of his hitting right in higher matters afterwards , and so S. W , must utterly despair of ever being convinced by his methodicall Charity . In my Epistle to the Reader , to render him account why the civility of mine adversary should not hinder me from giving him his own , if the care of an eternall good injured by him , interessed my zeal to lay him open , I proposed these two parallell questions . How would you take it if one should spit in your face , and justify the affront because his breath is sweet ? or what would you say to him that ruines your estate by Periury , and defends himself , that he held up his hands and eyes to heaven , and swore demurely ? Whatever answer you give , I am confident it will perfectly clear my behaviour towards the Dr. with whom I should have very little contention , were the difference between us in any thing of lesse concernment than Eternity Where any man , that is not more then half-asseep , may see the meaning is plainly this ; that as the alledging that the breath is sweet justifies not the affront of spitting in ones face , nor the pretence of swearing demurely , the wrong of ruining ones estate by perjury : so neither does Dr. H's civility in his former Treatise of Schism , justify or excuse him for abusively treating matters of such concernments as Eternity , nor consequently could his courteous stile oblige S. W. to treat him tenderly and favourably , whom the weightiest and worthiest Cause had more prowerfully pre-obliged to lay him open plainly . This being then most evidently the sense of that place , let us see whether Dr. H's witts were well awake , or his charity very methodicall , when he answered them . He neither goes about to grant or deny the invalidity of those pretended excuses : which onely was to be done : but instead thereof makes a piece of a sermon to you , very Christianly telling you how you ought to behave your self , in case you receive a private affront , and then being got into the Common-place of suffering injuries patiently , he runs division upon that ground , with Greek and testimonies , telling us that we must turn the other cheek to him that strikes us on the right , that we must pray forthem that despitefully use us , fraternally admonish , &c. and then layes it to S. W's conscience . In return I appeal to his Conscience , and reason both , whether all this be any thing to this question , whether the sweetnesse of the breath justify the affront of spitting in ones face , or civil language sufficiently excuse pernicious doctrine . His answer to the second is yet more pleasant . For instead of telling us whether swearing demurely be any excuse for perjury , so as to secure it from the punishment or treaty which otherwise might iustly be given it , he tells us in good sober sadnesse , that a man may use all lawfull means to defend his estate and discover perjury , and blames me for accusing him of perjurious tampering ; and that I might as truly have said that he offered sacrifice to Idols , consulted with Necromencers , &c. which superadds to the former errour , that he mistakes the comparison or similitude , for the thing it is brought to parallel or resemble ; and by his own litterall acception of it , will needs accuse him self of perjury whether S. W. will or no. And are not these pretty mistakes ? Yet these are not all , there is yet another behind greater than all the rest , if that may be call'd a mistake which sprung from the Will , and can hardly be father'd upon the weakest Vnderstanding : I made it my onely plea to the Reader for some blowes of mine , which he might apprehend too rude , that our controversy was about things concerning mens eternall salvation ; and therefore the Reader knowing that I ( as all Catholicks do ) hold my Faith certain , he had no reason to expect I should favour an Opponent in an act of such a nature , as is publickly harmfull to men's soules ; hence I ended my first paragraph , that I would have very litle contention with him , were the difference between us in any thing of lesse concernment than Eternity ; and the whole second paragraph proceeds upon the same ground . Now the Dr. in his Answer , where he pretends my conviction , takes no notice of my plea , but leaves out the end of the first paragraph now cited , to which the two parallel questions related , and to which they ought to be applyed ; transferring the matter from the publick injury to men's soules , to the case of a private injury of one single Christian to another : whereas our question is not whether if one strike one on the right cheek , according to Christ's law , he must turn the other ; but whether if a man be certainly held to have ruin'd some soules eternally , Christ bids us let him mine more ; or whether , if the wolf worry some sheep , the shepheard ought to give him more ? if not , then whether courtesy ought to have place towards such a destroyer of soules in those very writings with which he endeavours it , or rather whether it be not an obligation to shew it home what he is , as far as his faultinesse makes good the truth of the words ? This answer of his therefore is either totally impertinent to my question ; or else the application of it must force this inference ; Christ bid us turn the left cheek to him that strikes us on the right , therefore if a perverter of soules carry one to hell , resist him not , but let him carry more ; or if a robber climbe in to the fold , and kill one sheep , a good Christian ought in conscience rather than be discourteous yield him another . Is not this strange Logick ? but that which followes will in part justify it . Is it possible one should trip so often in running over a litle leaf of paper almost as intelligible as legible ? Yet we have not done so : followes in the Dr's Aswer p. 7. If he mark , his stile which was robust in the mention of perjury , is grown much fainter , when he comes to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretends to no more than perverse meaning and abusiue treating matters of Religion , &c. Where you see Mr. H. makes account that the abusive treating matters of Religion , which is able to plunge millions of soules into eternal damnation , is of lesse moment then perjury against one's temporall estate : though one who had never read Dr. H. would surely think that the charge of abusive treating matters of religion , being a businesse entrenching upon eternity , is much more robust , ( as he calls it ) than that of ruining a temporall estate by perjury ; since I think there is no good Christian but holds the eternall losse of one soul redeemed with Christ's most precious bloud , is of more worth than all the temporall riches this world can boast of . Is this man fit to have the charge of souls , who professes to set more by his temporal than their eternal felicity ? yet this is the method of Charity he promised us in the beginning of this Section . It seems that in this book also his old misfortune pursues him , that he is there most preposterous still in his discourse , where he pretends to be most methodical . See Schism Disarm'd , pag. 229. 230. Answ . p. 7. His last complaint against me is , that it is in S. W. a transgression of the rules of Art as well as Iustice , no other than the meanest begging the question , to suppose that guil● which he was to prove , to assume so early in the Epistle to the Reader what he must ( but hath not yet so much as attempted to ) demonstrate . Where note first that Dr. H. would have us believe , he made account that the Epistle to the Reader is to be writ by the Authour before he writes the book ; though other men use to make it their last task : next , he pretends that S. W. who was to answer his book , ought to prove and demonstrate , that is , oppose and object : which are two very good counterfeited and affected mistakes ; for I should be loath to wrong his judgment so much as to think he meant them seriously . These two artless suppositions without doubt proceeded from the same method he promised us in the beginning of the Section . The Reader may perceive by this what a pittifull spectacle Dr. H. would be , if S. W. should take the paines to dissect his book , and show how all the Anatomy of his reason is composed of such weaknesses ; every Section being very pregnant and full of them : but they are in these books swell'd to such a formidable number , that they both deterre him from that lesse necessary task , and he feares also lest they might cloy the Reader with their too-Comick relation . His third Section maintains , his self-bred persuasion that ( Answ . p. 8. ) the Authour of the Epistle from Bruxells was the Penman of at least the first part of Schism Disarm'd ; and his first argument to prove it , is the kindness Schism Disarm'd shows to that Epistle , affording it a very large Encomium , which he here puts down . So that first Schism Disarm'd must be suppos'd to be writ by the Authour of the Apology for Tradition because he finds there the said Apology highly commended ; and then straight he concludes from the same argument that the Epistle from Bruxells is the same Authour 's also , and these positions must onely hang together by the necess●ty of that worthy person's praising himself . If this be not to profess courtesy openly , and yet s●ily to practice the height of discourtesy , I profess myself much to seek in understanding the notions of either . But why is he imagin'd the Penman of but at least the first part of Schism Disarm'd ? Is not Schism Disarm'd all the same style , or is it at all like the style of the Catholick Gentleman 's Letter ? Sure , no man who ever understood what a style mean't can conjecture either , unless he had wifully a mind to calumniate without any ground of reason . His second argument to prove the Authour of both Treatises the same , is the affinity between them ; so that all Aristotelians and Aristotle , all Platonists and Plato must be concluded to be one and the same Authour , because of the affinity between their writings , I conceived the grounds of that Epistle so well layd , that I could not in reason recede from them , and lay others of mine own ; nor did I disown , but rather express my beholdingness to it , and shall endeavour to requite the favour by vindicating it from his Reply as far as it concernes us joyntly : nor am I much afraid that Dr. H. tells us here , it is certain that he hath made a reply to it all ; knowing well how many books are called Replyes and Answers , which yet need never answer to those names . The deaf Country-maid who being ask't which was the way to London , replyed , a poak full of plums , gave an answer ; but it is another question whether that answer were either pertinent or satisfactory . As for the Authour of that Epistle , he needs trouble himself no further : it was writ by one of M. H's old acquaintance , who was willing to honour his book of Schism , by showing that he thought it worth the least strictures of his learned pen. The Reply to the Catholick Gentleman consisted of 165. pages , this Answer to Schism Disarm'd of 303. yet this latter ( Answer ▪ p. 9. ) he calls an Appendix to the former , and gleaning after the rake : as if Appendixes used to be twice as big as the principal ; or that husbandmen used to rake armefulls , and leave cart-loads to be gleaned . However he shall see , I hope , ere we come to an end of this Treatise of mine , how ill he hath husbanded his reason , both in taking and gleaning . His complaint , that I took no notice of his Reply in my book , objecting that I had time to have done so , and that he cannot apprehend my retirement or imployment so strict , as not to hear of it , is onely his mis-apprehension ; since I assure him Schism Disarm'd was out of my hands , long ere his Reply to the Catholik Gentleman came abroad ; nor was I in such circumstances as to see his Reply , till my own was already printed , as all who are acquainted with me and my occasions can testify : so thar Mr. H. should not have concluded I had time to have taken notice of it without certainty of the thing ; and may learn hence how many things may be true , which he cannot apprehend . He shall never find me unwilling to take notice of any thing he writes in favour of his cause ; if I conceive it likely to endamage the dear souls of my Brethren and Countrymen . Sect. 5. Some previous Grounds proposed , concluding rationally the whole Controversy . BEfore we come to close seriously with Mr. H. because the summe of his art consists in blundering the plainest truths with multitudes of wordish evasions , I thought fitting to lay down in most manifest and evident termes some Grounds which were most pertinent to our future discourse , and some deductions emergent thence ; by the bare position and explication of which , I doubt not to gain so far upon the rational Reader , that he shall confess he sees the question truly stated , and according to plain reason resolved : and if he carries these notions along with him with cautious and diligent reflection , he shall find no difficulty in any main point which concerns this present Controversy . The first Ground then shall be this , that The first pretenders to reform in the point of the Popes Authority in England , found England actually subiect to that Authority in Ecclesiastical matters . This Ground carries it's Evidence in it's own terms ; since they could not be truly called the first Reformers from it , unless before , that Authority had been there acknowledged . Neither matters it when and by whom this Reformation begun , since still the Ground now layd stands firm ; for the very word Reformation ( which they pretend ) argues that tenet was held before Hence all the evasions in Dr. H. are concluded vain ; who , when we plead that the Pope was found in possession of this Authority in England , flies off presently , and denies it , saying he had no title to such an Authority there : whereas when we maintain his possession , we pretend not yet a Right ( which is our inference thence ) but that actually England was under such an Authority , and acknowledg'd it ; whether it were rightly pretended or injustly remains to be inferred : which the Dr. mistaking , and not distinguishing between possession and right , sayes we beg the question ; when we onely take what is evident , that he was in possession , and thence infer a right , until the contrary be proved . The second Ground is , that This Authority actually over England , and acknowledged there , was acknowledged likewise to be that of the Head of the Vniversal Church , and not of a Patriarchate onely ▪ This Ground is no less evident than the former , by our adversaries confession ; since this is the Authority they impugn as unlawfull , and from which they reformed ; which last word implies the actual acknowledgment that Authority had before . Hence Mr. H's digression , to show that Kings could erect and translate Patriarchates , was perfectly frivolous , as far as concerns this purpose : for whether they can change Patriarchates or no is impertinent , when we are questioning an Authority above Patriarchs and pretended to be constituted by Christ himself . The third Ground is , that This Papal Authority actually over the Ecclesiastical affaires in England was held then as of Christ's Institution , and to have been derived to the Pope , as he was Successour to S. Peter . The truth of this appears by the known confession of the then Roman Church , and the self-same Controversy perpetually continued till this day . The fourth Ground is that This actual power the Pope then had in England , had been of long continuance , and settled in an ancient Possession . This is evinced both from our Adversaries grant , the evidence of the fact it self , and even by the carriage of S. Aust in the Monk , and the Abbot of Bangor , exprest in that counterfeited testimony alledged by Dr. H. whence we see it was the doctrine S. Austin taught the Saxons . The fifth Ground shall be , that No Possession ought to be disturbed without sufficient motives and reasons : and consequently it self is a title , till those reasons invalidate it , and show it null . This is evident first by Nature's Principles , which tell us there is no new cause requisite for things to remain as they are ; wheras , on the other side , nothing can be changed , without some cause actually working , and of force proportionable to the weight and settledness of the thing to be moved . Secondly by Morals , which teach us that mans understanding cannot be changed from any opinion or beleef , without motives ; ought not , without sufficient ones ; and consequently needs no new motive to continue it in any former assent , besides the foregoing Causes which put it there . Thirdly , we find that Politicks give testimony to , or rather stand upon this Ground ; assuring us when any Government is quietly settled , it ought so to stand till sufficient motives , and reasons in Policy , that is a greater common good , urge a change . And if Possession were held no title , then the Welshmen might still pretend to command England , and each line or race , which preceded and was outed , quarrel with any subsequent one though never so long settled , and so no certain right at all would be found of any possession in the World , till we come to Adam's time . Fourthly , as for the particular Laws of our Countrey , they clearly agree in the same favour for Possession . I shall onely instance in one common case . If I convey Black●cre to I. S. for the life of I. N. and after wards I. S. dy , in this case , because I cannot enter against mine own Grant , and all the world else have equal title , whoever first enters into the land is adjudged the true and rightfull Owner of it during the life of I. N. and that by the sole title of Occupancy , as they call it , which they wholly ground upon this known reason , that in equality of pretensions Possession still casts the ballance . Nay such regards is given by our Law to Possession , that were the right of a former Title never so evident , yet a certain time of peaceable Possession undisturb'd by the contrary claim , would absolutely bar it . And here I should take my self obliged to ask my Adversary's pardon , for using such words as a Dr. of Divinity is not presumed to be acquainted with , did not his own Example at least excuse , if not provoke my imitation . Thus much of the force of Possession in general , without descending to the nature of ours in particular , that is , of such a Possession as is justly presumable to have come from Christ . Hence followes , that , since Possession of Authority must stand till sufficient Reasons be alledged that it was unjust , those Motives and Reasons ought to be weighed , whether they be sufficient or no , ere the Authority can be rejected : wherefore since the relinquishing any Authority actually in power before , makes a material breach from that Government ; the deciding the question onely stands in examining those Reasons which oppose its lawfulness , since the sufficiency of them cleares the breakers , the insufficiency condemns them , and in our case makes the material Schism formal . Let the Reader then judge how little advised Dr. H. was in stating the question rightly and clearly ( of Schism pag 10. ) where he tells us that the motives are not worth he eding in this controversy , but onely the truth of the matter of fact . For the matter of fact , to wit , that there was then an actual Government , and that they broke from it , being evident to all the world , and confest by themselves ; if there be no reasons to be examined , he is convinced by his own words to be a Schismatick , so flatly and palpably , that it is left impossible for him even to pretend a defence . The sixth Ground shall be , that Such a Possession as that of the Pope's Authority in England was held , ought not to be changed or rejected upon any lesser motives or reasons , than rigorous and most manifest Evidence that it was usurp't . The reasons for this are fetch 't by parity from that which went before & onely the proportions added . For in moving a Body in nature , the force of the cause must be proportion'd to the gravity , settledness , and other extrinsecal impediments of the Body to be moved , otherwise nothing is done . In morals , the motives of dissent ought to be more powerfull than those for the former continuance in assent , otherwise a soul as a soul ( thas is , as rational ) is not , or ought not to be moved : and so in the rest . Now that nothing less than Evidence , rigorously and perfectly such , can justify a rejecting of that Authority , is thus show'd . That Authority was held as of Faith , and to have been constituted by Christ's own mouth ; it had been acknowledgedly accounted for such by multitudes of pious & learned men for many ages before , & in all Christian Countries of the Communion of the Roman Church , 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 pe●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 consonant●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 whence to alledge those testimonies , comparable to that of the Church they left ; since they can never even pretend to show any company of men so incomparably numerous , so unquestionably learned , holding certainly , as of Faith , and as received from the Apostles , that Government which they impugned , and this so constantly for so many hundred years , so unanimously and universally in so many Countries where knowledge most flourish't , testifying the same also in their General Councels : all which by their own aknowlegedment was found in the Church they left . The eihtgh Ground is , that The proofs alledged by Protestants against us bear not even the weight of a probability to any prudent man who penetrates and considers the contrary motives . For the proofs they alledge are testimonies , that is words capable of divers senses , as they shall be diversely play'd upon by wits , Scholars , and Criticks ; and it is by experience found that generally speaking , their party and ours give severall meanings to all the Testimonies controverted between us . Now it is manifest , that computing the vastnefs of the times and places in which our Profession hath born sway , we have had near a thousand Doctors for one of the Protestants ; who , though they ever highly venerated , and were well versed in all the Ancient Fathers and Councells , yet exprest no difficulty in those proofs , but on the contrary made certain account that all Antiquity was for them . Thus much for their knowledge . Neither ought their sincerity run in a less proportion than their number , unless , the contrary could be evidently manifested , which I hear not to be pretended ; since they are held by our very Adversaries , and their acts declare them to have been pious in other respects , and , on the other side , considering the corruptness of our nature , the prejudice ought rather to stand on the part of the disobeyers , than of the obeyers of any Government . Since then no great difficulty can be made but that we have had a thousand knowing men for one , and no certainty manifested , nor possible to be manifested , that they were unconscientious , we have had in all morall estimation a thousand to one in the meanes of understanding aright these testimonial proofs ; and then I take not that to have any morall probability which hath a thousand to one against it . But I stand not much upon this , having a far better game to play ; I mean the force of Tradition , which is fortify'd which such and so many invincible reasons , that to lay them out at large , and as they deserve , were to transcribe the Dialogues of Rusworth , the rich Storehouse of them : to them I refer the Reader for as ample as satisfaction as even Scepticism can desire , and onely make use at present of this Consideration ; that if it be impossible that all the now-Fathers of Families in the Catholick Church , disperst in so many nations , should conspire to tell this palpablely to their Children , that twenty yeares agoe such a thing ( visible and practical as all points of Faith are ) was held in that Church , if no such thing had been , and that consequently the same impossibility holds in each twenty yeares upwards till the Apostles , by the same reason by which it holds in the last twenty ; then it followes evidently , that what was told us to have been held twenty yeares agoe , was held ever , in case the Church held nothing but upon this Ground , that so she received or had been taught by the immediately-foregoing Faithfull : for as long as she pretends onely to this Ground , the difficulty is equal in each twenty yeares , that is , there is an equal impossibility they should conspire to this palpable lie . Now that they ever held to this Ground , ( that is , to the having received it from their Ancestours , ) is manifested by as great an Evidence . For since they now hold this Ground , if at any time they had taken it up , they must either have counterfeited that they had received it from their Ancestours , or no. The former relapses into the abovesaid impossibility ; or rather greater , that they should conspire to tell a lie in the onely Ground of their Faith , and yet hold ( as they did ) their Faith built upon that Ground to be truth : the latter position must discredit it self in the very termes , which imply a perfect contradiction , for it is as much as to say , nothing is to be held as certainty of Faith , but what hath descended to us from our Forefathers ; and yet the onely Rule which tells us certainly there is any thing of Faith , is newly invented . Wherefore , unless this chain of Tradition be shown to have been weak in some link or other , the case between us is this ; whether twenty testimonies liable to many exceptions , and testify'd by experience to be disputable between us , can bear the force even of a probability against the universal acknowledgment and testification of millions and millions in any one age , in a thing visible and practical : To omit that we are far from being destitute of testimonies to counterpoise , nay incomparably over poise theirs . By this Ground , and the reason for it , the Reader may judge what weak and trivial proofs the best of Protestant Authours are able to produce against the clear Verdict of Tradition , asserted to be infallible by the strongest supports of Authority and reason . To stop the way against the voluntary mistakes of mine Adversary , I declare my self to speak here not of written Tradition to be sought for in the Scriptures and Fathers , which lies open to so many Cavils and exceptions ; but of oral Tradition , which ( supposing the motives with which it was founded , and the charge with which it was recommended by the Apostles ) carries in it's own force , as apply'd to the nature of mankind , an infallible certainty of it's lineal and never-to-be-interrupted perpetuity , as Rushworth's Dialogues clearly demonstrate , Sect. 6. The Continuation of the same Grounds . THe ninth Ground is , that , The Catholick Church and her Champions ought in reason to stand upon Possession . This is already manifested from the fifth Ground , since Possession is of it's self a title , till sufficient motives be produced to evidence it an usurpation ; as hath there been shown . By this appears the injustice of the Protestants , who would have it thought reasonable , that we should seem to quit our best tenour , Possession attested by Tradition , and fall upon the troublesome and laborious method of citing Authours , in which they will accept of none but whom they list ; and , after all our pains and quotations , directly refuse to stand to their judgment : as may be seen in the Protestant's Apology ; in which by the Protestant's own confessions the Fathers held those opinions , which they object to us for errours . The tenth Ground is , that , In our Controversies about Religion , reason requires that we should sustain the part of the Defendant , they of the Opponent . This is already sufficiently proved , since we ought to stand upon the title of Possession , as a Ground beyond all arguments , untill it be convinced to be malae fidei , which is 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 absurditi●● . 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 ind●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 anciētly 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 call●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 actiōs . 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 is , that Historical proofs which manifest onely Fact , do not necessarily conclude a Rig●t . This is evident ; First , because testimonies conclude no more than then express : but they express onely the Fact : therefore they conclude onely that the Fact was such a person 's , not that the Right was his . Secondly , because no matter of Fact which concerns the execution of any business is such , but it may be performed by another who hath no proper Rigth , but borrows it from the delegation of some other , to whom it properly belongs ; as we see in Vice-Roys . Thirdly , because in a process of fifteen or sixteen hundred years it cannot be imagin'd but there should happen some matters of Fact either out of ambition , inter , est , ignorance , or tyranny , against the most inviolable Right in the world ; nay even sometimes out of too much zeal and piety , great men , if they have not discretion proportionable , will be medling with things which do not concern them as we see by daily experience . Now a testimony of a matter of Fact can never conclude any thing , unless it be first manifested that that Act our when he proceeded to action was bassed with none of these , but governed himself by pure Reason ; that is , unless it be manifested that he had Right : and if testimonies can be produced expressing that he had Right , it was needless to stand alledging those which express't onely Fact. Frivolous therefore it is to bring historical proofs of Fact upon the stage , in a dispute about Right ; since , taken alone , they make onely a dumb show , and can act no part in that Controversy : for the very alledging that some of these faults might intervene , disables such premises from inferring a Right . Neither ought Mr. H. ( which , I suppose for want of Logick , or forgetfulness how men use to dispute , he is ever apt to do ) exact of the Defendant a reason of his denial in particular : but it is his part to prove that none of these defects could happen , otherwise his Premisses of Fact hang together with his Conclusion of Right by no necessity of consequence . Let the Reader then take notice by this plain information of reason , how senselesly Dr. H. behaved himself in the business of erecting and translating Patriarchates , and in many other places , where from some particular matters of Fact he would needs conclude a Right . The twelfth Ground is , that The acceptation of the secular powers , and their command to the people , are necessary to the due and fitting execution of the Churches Lawes ; whence follows not that the Princes made those Lawes by their own Authority , but that they obey'd and executed what the Church had order'd : For unless the Churche's Ordinances should be put into temporal laws , which oblige to their observance by aw and fear of punishment , they could hardly ever find an universal reception ; since otherwise refractory and turbulent Spirits , who cared not much for their obligation in confcience , might at pleasure reject , disobey , and reclame against them : which would both injure the Authority of the Church , and scandalize the community of the Faithfull . This therefore being of such an absolute conveniency for the Church , we need not wonder that the temporal power ( of Christians ) should put the Churche's orders into temporal Laws , and execute their performance ; nor consequently can testimonies of such execution and laws , prejudice the Pope ' s Right , since Catholick Governours do the self same at present , ( as far as concerns this point ) which was done then . The thirteenth Ground is , that It is granted by Catholicks , that Kings may exercise some Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction , by the concession of the Church , and yet not prejudice thereby the Pope's Vniversal Pastourship . This is most visible from the unanimous acknowledgment of all Catholick Authours , and verifyed by divers practical instances . Hence it is evident that Dr. H. must either manifest likewise , that the lawfulness of those matters of Fact related of Kings was not originiz'd from the Churche's precedent orders , or else he concludes nothing at all against us . Here I desire the Reader & Mr. H. may joyntly take notice , that the testimonies himself alledges from the Church in her Councils , granting this to the Secular power , is a strong prejudice against their self-and-proper Right ; as also , that he hath not so much as attempted to produce one Testimony , of any Authority , expressing it to be the Right of the secular Magistrate , independent of the Church . The fourteenth and last Ground is , that In case Scbism should invade a whole Country , it could not be expected to have happen'd otherwise than D H. ( of Schism c. ) hath described . For it is to be expected that the secular power should be for it , and so use meanes to make the Clergy & Vniversities assent to his novelty : otherwise had either the Temporal Government awed them , the Pastours of souls consented to inform the people right , or the Vniversities ( the Seminaries of learning ) conspired to write against that innovation , in all likehood it would have given a stop to it's proceding , at least have hindred it's universal invasion . Hence follows that Dr. H's narrative discourse of his Schism hath nothing in it to bewonder us ; but rather , that it is as plain and particular a confession of the Fact , as any penitent malefactour could make when he is about to suffer . For , that a Nation may fall into Schism , none doubts ; as little , that it should fall into it by those very means , and the same degrees which he there layes down . Nay more , himself disgraces his own Narration by confessing ( p. 136. ) that the Clergy were inclined to subscribe by the feare of a premunire : and the question about the Pope's Right in England being debated in the Vniversities , he sayes onely p. 135. that it was generally defined in the negative ; ( that is when the King's party prevailed ) yet he omits that the Kings lust first moved him to think of Schismatizing , and his final repentance of that Act ; which show that the first spring which mov'd the whole Engine was not purity of conscience , but the impurest and basest of passions . The positions , which I have layed dow for Grounds to our future discourse , will of themselves lay open the whole case clearly to the ordinary Readers ; and inform the more prudent ones , that nothing is or can be sayd by Dr H. of a force and clearness comparable to that of our Possession , and that of oral Tradition , which we ever ●laim'd for our Tenour ; from which also they disclaimed , when they reform'd in this point of the Pope's Supremacy . So that litle more remains to be perform'd , but to manifest his shallow weaknesses , and trivial impertinences ; which I should willingly omit , if the greatest part of Readers would be as willing to think a book fully answer'd , when substantial points are shown to be nothing , as they are to catch at the shadow of words as matters of importance , and so imagine nothing done , till they also be reply'd upon . Nor do I fear this task , though ingratefull in it's self and less necessary , will be voyd of fruit , specially to Mr. H's Friends , who may see by this Answer of mine , how bad that cause must be , which can cast so understanding a man , as some of them imagine him , upon such non sense , weaknesses of reasoning , voluntary mistakes , falsifications , denying his own words , and many other ridiculous shifts , as shall be seen most amply in the process of this Treatise . Sect. 7. Dr. H's accurate mistake of every line of the Introduction to Schism Disarm'd ; and his wilful avoyding to answer the true import of it . Mr. H's reason which was gravelled in understanding the plain words in my Epistle to the Reader ( as hath been shown ) has no better fortune in confuting my Introduction . I exprest in the beginning of it , that It bred in me at first some admiration why the Protestants should now print books by pairs to defend themselves from Schism , who heretofore more willingly skirmish't in particular Controversies , than bid battel to the main Body of the Church , &c. Vpon which Dr. H. not aware that upon every new occurrence , or effect , the admirative faculty first playes it's parts , and stirres up the reason to disquisitiveness for the cause of it ( such reflections ly much out of the way of one who gleans testimonies ( will not give me leave something to admire at first , till I had found the reason , at an occurrence evidently new , that is , their writing at this time books by pairs to clear them selves from Schism ; but is pleased to turn my ordinary , easy , moderate words of some admiration at first , into those loud phrase ( p. 12. l. 19. ) of great , vnheard of news and prodigy , putting news and prodigy in different letters , that himself might be thought an Oedipus , who had unriddled my imagin'd aenigma . But since any thing which is uncouth and disorderly justly stirres up admiration , what necessity is there that Dr. H. and his Friends should hap to do all things so orderly , wisely , and reasonably , that poore S. W. ( whom he confesses here p. 10. l. 36 not to have been of his Councel in his designment ) might not be allow'd to have some admiration at first , at their mysterious imprudence . But he will needs undertake to allay my admiration ( though I was much better satisfy'd with my own reason there given ) by telling me , it was seasonable charity to undeceive weak seducible Christians , because the Romish Missaries by pretence of their Schism , endeavour'd to defame them out of a persecuted profession . Where first I assure him , that many of those who have of late become Catholicks , are as great Scholars and wits as have been left behind , and so more likely to have been reduced by reason , than seduced by the industry of others working upon their weakness : the weak seducihle Souls of the former Protestants are either turn'd Quakers , or such like kind of things ; those who have run back to the lap of their Mother the Holy Catholick Church , are such as are neither easily deceivable by our Missaries , nor possibly undeceivable by Dr. H. multitudes of them being such as might wi●h far better reason be wish't to have the Answering of Dr. H. in my stead , than be feared to be mo'vd by his reasons to renounce their own . Nor needed they be tempted by others ; their own reason , if disinteressed , could not but inform them that that Religion was not true , that Church but counterfeit , whose grounds were rotten , and whose Fates depended upon the Temporal Power . Nor hath the other part of that poor sentence scap't better from his artificial mistakes . I onely affirmed , that they heretofore seem'd more willing to skirmish in particular controversies , than bid battel to t●e main body of the Church : which he misunderstands , as if I had said that no Protestants ever writ against the Authority of our Church , and then impugnes his own mistake , father'd upon S. W. very strongly by nominating some few books upon that subject ; ( Ans . p. 11. l. 2. ) pittying himself that he should 〈◊〉 set to prove , what none said but himself : and truly I pitty him too . But are not there near an hundred times that number , who have skirmish't against us in particular Controversies ? I hope then this will serve to justify those moderate words of mine , that they seem'd more willing to that task . Yet he triumphs over me , saying that it is much juster matter of wonder to him , that S. W. should set out so unauspiciously , as to begin with an observation founded in a visible contrariety to a plain matter of Fact , that every man that thinks of must discern to be so . Thus doth he trample down and then strut over S. W. at the first onset ; so potent still and victorious is he , when he fights against his own Chimaera's . I am persuaded a little sooth-saying will serve the Reader to determine who began the more inauspiciously , and at whose door the sinister bird croak't . Yet though ( saith he ) those words had been true , that formerly the Protestants were more willing to skirmish in pa●●icular Controversies , yet ( Dr. H. tells us ) it were obvious to every man what might now suggest the change of that course : and what obvious reason might this be but that , after particular Controversies were competently debated , to set the ▪ Axe to the root of the tree , and stock up Rome's universal Pastourship and infallibility ? Where he sees not that the question remains still to be ask't , why the competent debating of particular Controversies should just then end , and the propter time then begin for the Protestants to stock up Rome , when themselves had never a legg left them to stand on ; and why they should hope then rather to get the upper hand , when they ly flat along themselves , as if Antaeus-like they were stronger by falling . Again , had many been induced by reason to return to the Catholick Church , yet I cannot understang why the Protestants zeal should think it more seasonable to write Books by pairs against us , than against their other Desertours ; since they who have gone from them into other Sects are above an hundred for one in comparison of the Catholik Converts ; so that had not S. W. found out a reason , to rid himself of his some admiration , he might still have remain'd in it for any thing M. H. hath produc't . Vpon occasion of my saying , that it was more seasonable to denounce to those Sects the unreasonableness of their Schism , than plead the reasonableness of their own ; he voluntarily mistakes my words , as if I meant that he had confess 't it Schism , and then gone about to plead the reasonableness of it : whereas I onely intended ( as is evident ) that he went about to plead the reasonableness of that which I ( who am the Defendant ) doe , and must hold for Schism , and consequently may nominate it so , that is of his breaking from our Churche's Government . Yet for this I have lost my credit , this being another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( as he tells the Reader , if he can understand Greek ) what trust is due to S. W. in his affirmations . Should he make use of the same method , and every time I name them Schismaticks , or their sect Schism , feign that I say they call themselves so , he might by this art make S. W. a monstrous lyer , if the Reader were so monstrously silly as to believe him . In the next place , I must needs ( Answ . p. 13. ) misunderstand the nature , and ayme of the Churche's censures , because I tell them , They should rather threaten their Desertours with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication , than cry so loud , Not guilty , when the lash hath been so long upon their own shoulders ; since he sayes , a Schism arm'd with mig●t is not either in prudence or charity to be contended with . Whereas I pretend not that they ought to execute the punishments subsequent to Excommunication , but to separate themselves ( had they any Grounds to make it good that they were God's Church ) from Schismaticks , and avoid their Communion in Etern actions belonging to God's worship , as God's Church ever accustomed ; not ●caring to denounce and preach to them in plain terms that they are Schismaticks , and cut off from the Church . Neither is this against Charity , since , ( Schism being such an hainous and damnable sin ) Charity avouches , nay makes it an obligation to manifest Schismaticks to be such ; that they who have faln may apprehend the s●d state they are in , and thence take occasion to arise , and they who stand may beware of falling into that dangerous gulf , which once open'd the earth to swallow Core Dathan , and Abiron . Nor is it against prudence , since every one knows the permitting the weaker sort to commun●cate with enemies in those very circumstances which may endanger them , is the onely way to ruine any Government either Spiritual or Temporal . At least why should they not dare ( had they Grounds to bear them out ) to do the same as the Catholicks did , during the time of their greatest persecution under the Protestant Government ; that is , let them be known to be Schismaticks , and make the people abstain in divine matters from their contagious Communion . But the confest uncertainty of their Faith makes them squeamish to assume to themselves any such Authority , and therefore they are forced by their very Grounds , when their Secular Power is gone , to turn discipline into courtesy in matters of Government , as they do in controversy turn zeal into civility and complement . When he talks here piously of the Romanists sanguin try method , sure he hath forgotten that ever Priests were hang'd , drawn , and quarter'd for their Faith at Tiburn , and all over England , in the time of their cruel Reign ; or , if he remembers it , he thinks to make us amends by preaching , like a Saint , of their meekness , of edification , and the more tragically-pittifull expressions of lamenting the ruptures of the Christian world ( which themselves have made ) with rivers of teares of bloud . Answ . p. 13. The next Section begins with the rehearsal of my reason , why no colourable pretence can be alledged by the Protestants why they left us , but the same will hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them ; which I exprest thus : For that we prest them to believe false fundamentals Dr. H. and his Friends will not say , since they acknowledge ours a true Church , which is inconsistent with such a lapse . They were therefore in their opinion things tolerable which were urged upon them ; and , if not in the same rank , yet more deserving the Church should command their observance , than Copes , or Surplices , or the book of Common Prayer , the allowance whereof they prest upon their Quondam brethen . Which words though as moderately and modestly expressing the matter as could be invented , yet the Reader shall see what a character the Doctors peevish zeal hath set upon them ; to wit , that ( Answ . p. 14. ) there are in them too many variations from the Rules of sober discourse , so many indications of S. W. his temper , that it will not be easy to enumerate them . It shall be seen presently whether the Doctors Discourse or mine went a rambling when we writ . The tenour of my Argument ad hominem , was this : The falsities which you pretend we prest upon you , were either acknowledged by you to have been fundamental , or not-fundamental , that is , tolerable : that you acknowledg'd them fundamental you will not say , since falsity in a fundamental ruines the essence of a Church , which yet you grant ours to have ; therefore they were according to you not-fundamental or tolerable ; yet such kind of not-fundamental points as were more importing to be prest upon you by us , than Copes or Surplices , which you prest upon them : therefore you can alledge no reason why you left us , but they may alledge the same or a greater why they left you . This evidently is the sense of my words to any man who can understand common reason ; and the answer to them ought to be a manifesting-some solid motive why they left us , which the other Sects cannot with better right defend themselves with , why they left the Protestants . Let us hear now whether the Doctors discoursive power were sober , when he reel'd into such an answer . First , he willfully puts a wrong meaning upon those words false Fundamentals , as if by them I meant things which we onely , not they , hold for Fundamentals ; and then overthrows me most powerfully by showing ( as he easily might ) that he and his Friends say not but that we prest them to believe false Fundamentals , in this sense , that is such things as we held Fundamentals : whereas 't is plain by my arguing ad hominem all the way , as also by those words ( they will not say ; they acknowledge ours a true Church ; in their opinion , &c. ) that I meant such points as they accounted Fundamentals . And when he hath thus voluntarily mistaken me , he tailes against me that I affirm things without the least shadow and ground of truth , and that I play foul play . The Reader will quickly discern how meanly Dr. H. is skill'd in the game of reason ; though in that of citations , where he can both shuffle and cut , that is , both alledge and explicate them , with Id ests , as he pleases , he can pack the cards handsomly , and show more crafty tricks than ever did Hocus Pocus . And if any after all this can think I have wrong'd Mr. H. in affirming he is a weak reasoner , himself shall ber ample testimony to this truth in the following Paragraph . He slily touches at my true meaning of Fundamentals there , and tells us that false Fundamentals is a contradiction in adjecto . Grant it , who ever affirmed that Fundamentals could be false ? my words were onely that Dr. H. and his Friends would not say that our Church prest them to believe false Fundamentals . Is it any wrong to them , or foule play in S. W. to affirm that Dr. H. and his Friends will not speak a contradiction ? Himself ( such is his humility ) sayes it is ; affirming here , that when S. W. undertakes for him and his Friends , that they will not say that the Romanists have prest them to 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 Vnd●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 ind●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 unce●t●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 re●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 S●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 acknowledge a vice of the first magnitude ) if taken in it's primary signification , to which our circumstances determine it , includes for it's genus or material part a division , or act of dividing ; the specifical difference gives it a reference to the Ecclesiastical Government instituted by Christ . Now our great Masters of Moral Divinity assure us , that no action is in it self good or bad , but as it conduces to or averts from the attaining one's last end ; since all things else have the nature of meanes onely in order to the attainment of that , and consequently the esteem of their goodness or badness is built upon their alliance to that order . Whence follows that there is no action in the world , not killing one 's own Son , nor dividing from any Government whatsoever , in it self so bad , but might be done , could there be assigned motives and reasons , truly representing it better to attempt it . Now our all-wise God hath ordered things so providently for the peace and good of his Church , that it is impossible any cause or motive can be truly imagin'd sufficient to justify the rejecting it's Government ; since neither any private injury is comparable to such an universal good , nor can it happen that any miscarriage can be so publick as to force it's renouncing : for seeing our B. Saviour made but one Church , and that to continue for ever , if any cause were sufficient to break from that one Church , there would be a just and sufficient cause to be of no Church , which is against the Protestants own tenet , and makes them so desirous to pretend a descent from ours . Wherefore it remains impossible , that those who acknowledg the Churche's Government to have bin instituted by Christ , should pretend to any just cause to separate from it , but they ought to behave themselves passively , in case of an injury received , not actively renouncing that Government , or erecting another against it . Notwithstanding all this yet it may happen sometimes that ( as no Authority is or can be so sacred & inviolable , but passion can make men dislike it ) some company of men may disacknowledge the Authority instituted by Christ , to have come from him , alledging for the reason and motive of their renouncing it , that it is an usurpation , which they also pretend to prove by arguments drawn either from Reason or Testimonies . Now these men's plea might take place , if it were possible they should produce absolute evidence , and such as in it's own force obliges the understanding to assent , notwithstanding the contrary motives which retard it : and without pretending such a rigorous Evidence , it were madness to hazard an error in abusiness of such main concernment both to the Church , mankind , and their own Souls , as it would necessarily be , if that fact of theirs happen'd to be Schismatical . Now then let us see , whether my Adversaries inference be good , that , because Schism can have no just causes for it's parents , therefore Dr. H. in treating a Controversie of Schism , ought not to heed or produce the causes or motives of it . Indeed if he would grant himself and his Friends to be Schismaticks ; then it were to no purpose for him to alledge causes and motives , since all men know that no just cause can be possibly alledged for Schism : but if he does an external act which hath the resemblance or show of Schism , and nevertheless will defend himself to be no Schismatick , he must give account why he does that action , and shew that that action is not truly Schism ; which cannot be done without discussing reasons and motives , if common practise teach us any thing . Will any man endeavour to turn one out of possession lawfully , without a plea , or produce a plea without either any motive or reason in it ? Iustly therefore did the Catholick Gentleman affirme it to be a pure contradiction : for that a confest breach under debate should be concluded to have no just causes , that is to be indeed Schismatical ; or , to have just causes , that is to be a self enfranchisment , without producing & examining any causes , is a perfect implicancy . Nor will his instance ( Reply p. 5. 6. ) of a seditious person or Rebell , secure him at all : for as it is true that if it be known that he confesses himself a Rebel , there is no pleading of causes , ( as Dr. H. well sayes ) to justify his Rebellion ; yet as long as he pretends to be no Rebel , so long he is obliged to bring motives and reasons why his action of rising against the Government is not Rebellion , though it be accused and seem to be such . Now if Dr. H. hath not forgot the title of his book , t is a Defence of the Church of England against the Exceptions of the Romanists , to wit , those by which they charge her of Schism , that is , their accusing her that this action of Separation from the Church of Rome is Schismatical ; so that the whole scope and work of his book must be , to plead those motives and reasons which may seem to traverse that accusation , and shew that this action of the Church of England makes not her Schismatical nor her Sons Schismaticks . And how this can stand without producing motives , or is not as plain a contradiction as ens and non ens , I confess is beyond my understanding . In his eighteenth p. he cunningly forges a false state of the question in these words , that it is a matter in question between the Romanists and us , whether the Bishop of Rome had before and at the time of the Reformation any supreme legal power here , I willingly acknowlege . By which he would perswade the Reader , that he had condescended to a state of the question pretended by us : which is absolutely false ; for we state the question thus ; That , there being at that time an external confessed Government derived and in actual possession time out of minde , ( abstracting from whether it be internally legal or no ) whether the pretended Reformers either did then or can now show sufficient reasons of the substracting themselves from obedience to it . This is our state of the question , which hath it's whole force ( as the Reader may see ) in the acknowledged external possession . Now Dr. H. would make his Reader believe that the state of the question doth wholly abstract from the external possession , and purely debate the internal right , as if it hung hovering indifferently in the aire to be now first determin'd , without taking notice of the stability and force our tenet had from the long possession . And this handsome trick he gentilely put 's upon his Readers by those three sly words , I willingly acknowledge . Having thus mistaken voluntarily the state of the question , consequently he imposes upon me that I said , none doubts of the Bishop of Rome's supreme legal power over the Church of England at the time of the Reformation ; and then confutes me most palpably with telling me that they doubt it , or make a question of it . Can any man in reason imagin I was ignorant that such was their tenet , since I impugn it in this present controversy , as Schismatical ? yet Dr. H's great reach of wit can by the way , and within a Parenthesis , make such a dolt of S. W. His proof from my words is better then the supposi●ion it self : I said , our Church could cast them out , and deny them communion , if they be found to deserve it , being then her Subjects and Children . Actually they were under her at that time : if then they could alledge just ( that is ) evident reasons why they thought her Government an usurpation , then they did not deserve it , and so she could not excommunicate them ; if they did not , and yet would subtract themselves from her obedience , then they deserv'd it , and were justly excommunicated . Can any man doubt of this , or impose such a piece of known non-sense ( as his former deduction out of it is ) upon another , unless possess 't with Dr. H's want of ingenuity ? yet this he repeats again , p. 21. and calls his own straining at a gnat , my swallowing down the question at one haust . Now let us examin my words which breed his scruple : they are these , as cited in the Marge by himself . That our Church could cast you out , if you be found to deserve it , being then her Subjects and Children none doubts . Here I ask , first , whether he can shew that I speak of any interiour or legal Authority ; which if he cannot , 't is a plain imposture to father upon me the word legal , as he does in this place . Secondly , I demand whether any Protestant or Dr. H. himself doubts whether there was an extern , apparent , and acknowledged Authority , the which for being such was to be obeyed until it was disproved , in the Church of Rome over the pretended Reformers . This being acknowledged , I ask what it is he excepts against . That such an Authority could not proceed against her esteemed Subiects , if they deserv'd it ; for this is all my words signify'd , and is so plain of it self , that no man that hath any common sense can make difficulty of it . He tells us p. 19. that the questions is equally and indifferently whether they or the Romanists be guilty of Schism , including also the remorseless Governours in the Romish See. Where he quite mistakes the business : his meaning ( as I perceive by his whole procedure , and particularly p. 22. where he sayes , that the Pope ought to clear his title to his pretended power ) is , that we should be mutually counter-opponent , and counter-defendants , and each produce proofs , ere we can claim any thing . But he is in a g●eat errour : we need no new proofs to convince the lawfulness of our Authority ; our plea is provided to our hand before they opposed us , and started the question Possession is all the proofs we need bring , and such a possession as had to strengthen it an universal belief that it came from Christ's time , grounded upon the certainty of Oral Tradition ; so that we made no question of it ( it was a point of our Faith ) and therefore need produce no proofs for our affirmative : whereas they , who first question'd this before-unquestionable , and re●ected this before-received Authority , must bring reasons why they did so , and proofs why they deemed it usurp't . The question therefore in this pre●ent debate devolves to this ; whether the proofs Dr. H. produces be convincingly evident against a possession so qualify'd , as is before declared : if they fall short of that force , eo ipso he and his Friends are concluded Schismaticks , for relinquishing without just motives an Authority , whose possession is justly presumable to have come from Christ ; if they be perfect Evidences , then they are excusable , and in their excusableness is terminated the controversy in hand , if we may trust the title of his book , which is A Defence against the except●on , of the Romanists , or his own stating the quest●on , of Schism , p. 11. from which he here prevaricates , p. 19. What follows further , out of their excusableness , against us , that is , whether we were unjust , usupers , tyrannical , &c. is another question ; for which sequel I would not contend with them , if the premisses could be possibly evinced . However , if we usurp't , it was not lately , but a thousand years agoe : But that our Church shall in that case be schismatical , ( as he here sayes ) that expression comes out from the mouths and pens of his Friends so weakly and faintly , ( the light of nature and common language of mankind checking them , that the whole is not said to be broken from a part , but a part from the whole ) that he must have recourse to the universal obligation of Charity to pretend us such : for we can never be ●hown even in his supposed case Schismatical against Government or Vnity in the Church , if no such Vnity can be found , as it cannot in that mould he hath cast Christianity in , by making each Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Independent , or self-govern'd ; since there can be no division made , where the things are already many . After his pretended indifferency of the question , he tells us , that it must not be begg'd on either side , and hereafter he complains of me grievously for the same fault I am sorry to see M. H. so ignorant in Logick , that he mistakes the most ordinary things in disputing . Let him know then that a Defendant , as a Defendant , cannot be sayd to beg the question ; since it is his office to hold his tenet , which is the thing in controversy , and stick close by it ; whatever prejudices or impossibilities are objected , to deny them cōsequent from it , granting those things which he takes to be consistent with it , denying those which he deems inconsistent , unless it be an open evidence ; if an ambiguity occur , to distinguish the double sense , and show again which part of the distinction is consistent with it , which otherwise : in all which it is manifest he supposes the truth of the question , and holds fast to it , nor ought he let go that hold til he be non-plust , and the dispute at an end . My part then being the Defendant's ( as hath been proved out of the tenth Ground ) the Reader may see with how much Logick D. H. complains of me all over , for only holding my tenet ; which he calls begging the question . For , however he may pretend to the name of a Defender , yet , since his party begun first to oppose , that is , to object and argue against ours , who at that time quietly held their tenet , 't is clear he is in no other sense a Defendant , than as one who maintains his first objected Syllogism with a second , may be said to defend it ; which is very improper and abusive of the right notion . Whereas we , who started not the dispute nor begun the opposition , but sate still , have yet a just title to continue in that our posture of defence , till the Evidence of their Arguments drive us out of it . His next complaint is against the Governours in the Romish See , who ( if you will trust him ) without all cause deny Communion without remorse or relenting , not onely to them , but to many other Churches east and west , north and south , in all parts of the habitable word . And was not this ever the constant practice of God's Church , to Excommunicate all those who renounced either the Government , or any other point of Faith received from their Forefathers ; that is , all Schismaticks and Hereticks ; and never to readmit them till they repented their lapse , and did fruits worthy of penance ? I grant therefore that the Romish Governours inherit the remorslesness of the foregoing Church , so that if any be found misdeserving in the same manner , in what part soever of the habitable world they live , whether East , West , North , or South , all is one to her ; or how many soever they be , Arians , Socinians , Eutychians , Nestorians , Carpocratians , Lutherans , Calvinists , Protestants ; &c. she values not their number , nor yet their situation : if they grow scabb'd with self opinionated novelties , or disobedience , they must be separated from the sounder flock ; nor ever be re-admitted , till their repentance hath wrought their cure . His fifth , sixth , seventh , eighth Paragraphs , which follow , lay down for their foundation a very excellent principle , introduc'● with an If ; as , If the Church of England ( p. 19. l. 22. ) be really 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; If the Bishop of Rome ( p. 20. l. 1. ) had really no more power and Authority over this Church , than the Bishop of Antioch over Cyprus , that is none at all ; In case the Bishop of Rome ( p. 21. l. 16. ) have no legal Authority over us , &c. and upon this he runs on very confidently a whole leaf and an half , concluding most evidently whatever he pleases in prejudice of the Pope , none daring to stop his career , or deny his consequences , so great vertue there is in the particle If : onely we may take leave to propose a parallel to it , that as he who intends to dine on larks , & prepares all things necessary , whithout any greater security than , If the s●y should fall , may in all likelyhood miss his meal ; so in greater probability must Dr. H. fail of his conclusion , which relies upon a conditional If , grounded onely in his own fancy . He expresses p. 22. much Charity towards the humble members of the Papacy who pray for the peace of the Caetholick Church . But if he would consider how litle they think of his Church , under that notion , he would con them litle thanks for their prayers . They never intended to pray for the peacefull a biding of the Protestants where they are , but rather for that salutiferous trouble of compunction and sorrow of heart , for their disobedience , and pervicacious obstinacy . Yet he will needs be beholding to them for praying for the Protestant Churches peace with the rest , and in courteous requital retains the favorable opinion of Salvation attainable amognst them . But cannot absolve from the guilt of the most culpable Schism the setters up , and maintainers of the partition-wall betwixt us . The Pope , Cardinals , and all the Clergy must bea● S. W. company to Hell , that 's decreed ; S. Paul hath ( doubt less ) long a goe pronounced sentence against them also . He would clear himself in the next place for mincing the Father's words . S. Austin affirmed , non esse quicquam gravius Schismate ; he render'd it , scarce any so great . Now S. W. knowing how willing he was to seek evasions to palliate Schism by pretence of some greater sin ( as he does most amply , of Schism , cap. 2. part . 8. ) and therefore not willing to grant him any the least startinhole , exprest by the way his dislike of his mincing the absolute not , with scarce . But as Mr. H's good fortune would have it , his Genius led him into this profitable mistake , as to translate gravius , so great ; and by the jumbling of these two together he hath compounded an excuse , alledging that scarce any is so great , is fully as much ( or more comprehensive ) than none greater . Whereas first it is manifest that non esse quicquam gravius , is most obviously and easily render'd , there is nothing greater : and if a qualifying expression be made use of in stead of an absolute one , S W. had good reason to be jealous of it , specially coming from Dr. H. Next the reasons he alledges to make good the equivalence of the sense , that there may possibly be many crimes as great , though no one were supposed greater , is false ; Moral Science assuring us that no two kinds of vices are equall Thirdly , if Dr. H. please to rub up afresh his forgotten Logick , he will find that with S. Austin's proposition , that none is greater , it cannot stand that one is greater , since they are contradictories ; but with his proposition , that scarce any is so great , it vell stands , that one , or some few , may be greater : Therefore it is manifest that he minced S. Austin . Lastly , whereas he sayes he assumed not to affirm more than his Authorities did induce , that there was none greater , is the strangest lapse of all : before he onely minc'd the words non est quicquam gravius , now they have totally lost their signification ; since he tells us his Authorities did not induce that there was none greater ; which is directly contrary to the words cited . This is the result of Dr. H's deliberate thoughts , apply'd to remedy his Disarmer's too great hast : Me thinks another man in another cause might have done better ex tempore . I took notice by the way , with a glance of a parenthesis , that he mitigated S. Irenaeus his words , Nulla ab eis tanta fieri potest correptio , quanta est schismatis pernicies , by rendring the absolute tenour of them , Nulla potest , &c. by the softer language of , It is very hard if not impossible , to receive such an injury from the Governours , &c. To clear himself , he asks me first why I took no notice of his ill rendring Schismatis pernicies . I answer , that it is not necessary to score up all his faults ; it suffices to note what I conceived most needfull . Next , he excuses himself by telling us that he set down the Latin punctually , and so left it not possible to impose on any that understood that . I answer , that my intent in noting it was , that he should not even impose on those who understand English onely , and make up the greater part of Readers , Thirdly , he sayes he was carefull not to goe beyond the limits of the testimonies . I grant it , and onely find fault that he was over-carefull , so as to fall short of their just sense . Fourthly , he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , both in Scripture and other Authours , is render'd hard or difficult . Which evasion is nothing , unless he had this testimony out of Irenaeus in Greek , as his words seem willing underhand to make the Reader believe : which if he have , I am sure he hath seen more than other men , though very curious , could ever hear of . These are his evasions : let us see what plain reason will say against them : It is very hard , if not impossible , to receive such an iniury sufficient to excuse Schism , evidently is consistent with this sense , that , it is doubtfull whether some few injuries may not be sufficient for that end ; and then if the some of these last words doe not mitigate the absolute , nulla potest , there can be none , I confess I have lost my reason . To omit that the sense of his translation or paraphrase few or none , &c. leaves room for the reasonableness of Schism , since it admits a possibility for Schism , in case of some injury received , to be excusable . In a word , I onely affirmed ( Schism Disarm'd , p. 3. ) that he seem'd something chary in those expressions , which I am sure the Reader will think I have made good ; himself acknowledging here ( p. 24. l. 11. ) that his expression was cautious , and the fact of mincing the words being evident : As for his intention , if the Reader wil believe him , he assures him ( Answ . p. 18. ) it was out of tenderness to us ; so that we must bear the blame of his feeble paraphrase , and be beholding to him to boot . Timeo Danaos , & dona ferentes . Howsoever , since it was our fortune to have the intention of a courtesy thrust upon us , we thank him for it , but request him to do us no more such favours for the future , as to mince the Fathers words for our sakes ; they will earn a return of greater gratitude from his own cause , which stands in need of such kindnesses . My third whisper ( as he calls it ) which he will needs have speak aloud to his discredit , is that he render'd S. Austin's words à communione orbis terrarum , from the Vniversal or truly Catholick Church of Christ ; as if he were afraid lest God's Church might perhaps be thought untruly Catholick . Of which he sayes the reasons is visible , because the Church of Rome is by her Advocates styled the Catholick Church . But do not others call her so besides her own Advocates ? do not even our very enemyes ( forced thereunto by custome , which makes words proper ) give us that appellation , unless design cross their free and natural expression ? Ask in London where a Catholick lives , and see whether they will show you the house of a Roman Catholick , or no. Should a Pursuivant meet Dr. H. and ask him if he were a Catholick , I doubt not but his answer would be negative , unless design against us made him deliver himself otherwise . Since then we onely have nomen Catholicum obtentum & possessum , which S. Austin ( contra Epist. Fund . cap. 4. ) holds to be a note of the Church , it is a wrong to that holy Doctor , to put upon him in your translation the unnecessary addition of truly , to Catholick ; seing that according to him , no Church can be universally called such , which is not truly such . The summe then of Dr. H's supererogating truly , is ; that though all the world in their free expressions call us onely Catholicks , ( that is , sons of the Catholick Church ) yet all speak untruly , but himself and a few of his brethren ; who also speak truly onely then , when it is their turn to dispute against us . Yet he tells us , if we will believe him , that certainly our Church is not such in the notion S. Austin speaks : though if we should ask him what ground he hath for his certainty , he must answer that he hath none that is certain , but onely a probability ; for I conceive he hath no better ground for that than he hath for his Faith. Thus Dr. H. ends his defence from my three Whispers , as he calls them , though I hope by this time they speak loud and plain enough to every Reader that he was too chary in his expressions , which was all I objected . In the close he pleases to honour me , by making me Confessour of his secretest and deepest reservation : but truly ( though I pretend not to so high an office ) unless he comes with hearty sorrow for these faults without cloaking them , and gives me good hopes of his future amendment , he is never likely to obtain absolution . The Catholick Gentleman noted by the way , that Dr. H. slightly past over the distinction between Heresy and Schism , which was necessary to be exprest in that place , where the matter of the futurework was to be determined , that is , what Schism he was chiefly to treat of . Now in this Book entitled their defence he ought to state the matter so , as to treat of that chiefly which is chiefly objected : wherefore since he cannot but know that a Schism coming from an Heresy is that which is more charged upon them , both as greater crime , and as the cause and origin of the other Schism of onely disobedience , he ought to have premised this , and let his Reader have known that all Heresy is Schism ; at least in a place where he purposely treats of the notion of Schism , it was fitting to treat it abstractedly from the heretical one , and that of bare disobedience , ( both which are objected , though the former much more ) and not speak of it as distinguish 't from heresy , as professedly here he does , of Schism chap. 2. par . 1. so laying wrong grounds to his future discourse , by omitting and excluding from it the principal Schism objected , and so treating Schism maimedly , or rather onely one branch of it . Now his first excuse why he past it over so sl●ghtly ( onely naming the word distinguish't , yet treating no distinction there , ) is that he meddled not with it at all , Reply p. 8. l. ●0 . as if this made not the fault greater , not to meddle with that which was in a manner soley important in that place , and most pertinent to his ensuing T●eatise . His next is , that his method led him to it , to treat of it , Chap. 8. whereat 'ts evidently most impertinent and unmethodical to treat of Schism against Faith under the head of Schism against mutual Charity : and besides , method gives , that we must put the definitions before we treat of the particularities . I am sorry to see that his confusion for method's sake , the non-sense of his first book is entail'd upon these also ; and that that Dish in the Stationers bill of fare must be cook't up again here by Mr. H. to give the Reader a second surfeit . Sect. 9. How Dr. H. defends his famous Criticism about the Hith pael-like verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with ten several mistakes of his Accidence . HIs second Section presents us with the first Dish in the Stationer's bill of fare , served up to the table cover'd ; but with so many pittiful evasions , and mistakes , as may serve perhaps to give the Reader a banquet of mirth . But I shall treat it seriously . His first mistake is general , and slips over the whole question . Our controversy is whether either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have a reciprocal signification upon a Grammatical account , from the notation of the form and termination of the word , as he declares himsel ( of Shism , p. 13. ) to mean of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least : now he , to evade , quite forsakes his formely-declared intent , and recurres for his refuge to the sense of the word taken from the thing signify'd , and affix't to it by Ecclesiastical use , or present circumstances , not to what the word in it self requires , nor to what it is beholden to Grammar for . His second mistake ( which I pardon'd him before ) is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes from the active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , since Grammarians use to derive that verbal from the second person of the preterperfect tense passive . His third mistake ( or rather voluntary evasion ) is , that , whereas he was accused for misunderstanding the nature of a Conjugation , in saying that a Greek passive for want of conjugations was design'd to supply another signification , he flies off , and sayes he mean't it of such as the Hebrew Grammars call thus : as if he should say that Greek verbs want Hebrew Conjugations . To omit that the Conjugations in Hebrew are improperly call'd such , shall be shown presently . His fourth mistake is , that he makes account it is a propriety to express Conjugations to be flexions and variations both of the signification and first syllable , as the Hebrew calls Conjugations : for to state the matter indifferently ( though the contrary use of the word , in both Latin and Greek , out-sound , and so make improper the different use of it in Hebrew ) let us abstract from all the three , nay from all languages , and upon Grammatical principles put a difference between Voyces and Conjugations , no other can be imagin'd than this , that a Voyce relates to the signification , a Conjugation to a diversity in some letter or syllable . This being so , that expression is proper which signifyes each in it's own propriety and distinction , not both at once , blended in a confusion . Improperly therefore in Hebrew are they called Conjugations ; and more properly did S. W. affirm that in Hebrew , Voyces and Coniugations were jumbled , as the Doctor 's words now cited justify . His fifth mistake is , that the Printer's evident errour in putting eight votes for eight voyces , is the unconceivable lapse ( as hee all 's it ) of S. W. whereas no man that was no better than half blind , could possibly fall into such a toyish piece of oversight , since the wrong word votes is put once onely , but the right word voyces twice , so immediately next it , that it could not possibly leave it undiscover'd ; to wit , three lines before it , and again three lines after it . Yet this hard riddle hath cost the good Doctor a great deal of paines , for he tells us here ( Answ . p. 27. ) he cannot by any enquiry discover that any Grammariam hath styled them eight votes . What a wise task it was to consult all the multitude of Grammars extant for such a trifle , which was just at his nose ? and what a miserable life does he lead in turning over leaves daily to so litle purpose ? But every thing delights most in it's own Element . His sixth mistake is , his denial that there are more Conjugations in the Greek , than in the Hebrew . Now in Hebrew none imagine more than eight , and this forgetfull Adversary of mine was fit to defend in the foregoing page that there might be but foure ; whereas honest Cambden will inform him that in Greek , Conjugationes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sunt tredecim , sex barytonorum , tres contractorum , quatuor Verborum in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : now in our Country thirteen are more than eight ; but Dr. H. thinks otherwise . His reason why they are more properly such in Hebrew , because there the variation is both in the signification and the first syllable is already shown to be the reason why they are improperly called Conjugations , and rather Voyces ; which is yet made plainer by that which follows in the Doctor ( Answ . p. 27. 28. ) that one and the same Verb goes through all the Coniugations in Hebrew . For since it was never pretended that the word Conjugation is improperly termed such in Latin and Greek , where it is distinguish't from a Voyce , and yet in both those languages no verb runs through all the Conjugations , but through Voices onely ; it is manifest that , if theirs be proper , the notion of Conjugation in Hebrew is improper . His seventh mistake is ( Answ . p. 28. ) that all neutropassives are of the active voice ; of which he is so confident , that he tells me every School-boy knows it : sure these School-boys must have Dr. H. for their School-master . I am sure Will. Lilly would have whipt his Schollars for being ignorant of their As in praesenti , had they affirmed it ; where they might have read , and Dr. H. too , the Rule , Neutropassivum sic praeteritum sibi format , &c. instancing in Gaudeo , fido , audeo , fio , soleo , moereo , which if he account actives from their manner of flection , ( besides his old errour in the nature of a voice ) he may take notice that their preterperfect , from which more tenses are formed than from the present , is altogether passive ; if from their sense , let him tell me what Gaudeor , fior , &c. would signify if made passives . His eighth mistake is that sto partakes not of a passive sense : it must have then , according to him , a sense perfectly and totally active ; ( for no Latine Verbs can have any sense but what is either Active or Passive or compounded of these , except some few which signify Being ) if so , then seeing it ends in o● , why should it not be an active forming a passive in or ; for so Mr. Lilly teaches his boyes , that if it cannot take r 't is no active . If he replies , that it signifies in the manner of an action , yet not transitively as actives , but immanently , or as received in the agent , ( as in reality it does ) then he again makes it partake of a passive sense , since to signify an action as received in the agent , is to signify an action mixt with a passion , for that reception is such . In a word , those Verbs which signify action ( or in manner of an action ) of one thing upon another , are actives ; those that signify the reception of it in the other , are passives , and formed of these actives ; those that signify an action ( or in manner of an action ) of the same thing upon it self , partake of both , and are neuters ; and hence they may be render'd either actively , or passively , I stand , or , I am standing , I run , or , I am running , &c. though the difference and degrees of expressing this reciprocalness be more visible in some , than in others , according as their significatum is either a properly-called action including motion , or else the manner onely of signifying imitates the perfecter active . Pardon me , Reader , it is for Dr. H's sake , not thine , that I make this Grammatical lecture , who in his former book-had onely forgot his Accidence , but in this seems absolutely to have renounced it . Yet these are the exceptions which , in defiance of all Grammar , he takes against me , and then triumphantly insult's , and would make the Reader believe that he omits to enumerate others the like ( weightier you may be sure ) partly to preserve his graty , partly because it were unreconcileable with common Compassion . Well ; S W. may have many Adversaries , but never shall he meet with so tender-hearted a man , who is mightily afraid to hurt him , when he never comes near touching him . If he drew any bloud , I am sure poor Priscian , Lilly and Cambden felt the smart . His ninth mistake ( which he calls his answer to my principal scruple , but indeed is his own principal errour ) is his instancing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for parallels of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and to be of the nature of Hithpael . I answer , not onely these he alledges , but also that the second persons of the imperative mood in all Verbs signifying an action indifferently performable by himself or another , may by the circumstances come to signify an action upon himself ; yet this is not to be of the nature of Hith-pael , which hath this always of its own Grammatical force , without being beholding to circumstances . Again , the nature of Hith pael is to signify expressely as much as two words in Latin or Greek , as I instanced in Schism Disarm'd , and so is perfectly and essentially reciprocal ; these pretended parallels come from perfect actives , which signify no more reciprocalness than amo and cognosco , if taken in themselves , and abstracted from circumstances . But his main errour is , that he runs to the quality of the thing signify'd , from the quality of the word upon the account of the Grammatical notation : which was the sole design of this Critical discourse , and formerly his intent , till he was frighted from it . I grant therefore that the Ecclesiastical use and S. Iude rightly take a Schismatick for one who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , divides himself from the Church ; but can he show me that the Church or S. Iude or any , except himself , tell us that this kind of reciprocal signification accrues to that word by any Grammatical observation from the passiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; or that taken in it's own nature it is not indifferent to signify , I am cut by another , as , by my self , till some circumstance determine it ? or can any show , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( and so of the rest ) is in it's own passive nature of any farther signification , than barely I am saved , leaving it to be determin'd by other words , whether by my self , or some other ; that is having of it self no reciprocal sense ? Vnless he can show this , still the Doctor of Divinity hath forgot his Accidence , and the first Dish in the bill of Fare ( should I suffer it ) would be put again upon record : but I will chide the liquorish Stationer , and bid him have som mercy on Dr. H. who hath so much Compassion upon S. W. His tenth mistake ( Answ . p. 29. ) spent in sounding my Deep subtlety ( as he calls it ) is much-what of the same strain . The word Schismatick in the Ecclesiastical use hath for it's total signification one who is divided voluntarily ( by himself ) from the Church ; and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , if the circumstances apply it's native indifferency to that kind of sense , must signify ) I am divided voluntarily ( or by my self ) from the Church . Now to speak of the word it self , it neither signifies I am divided voluntarily , nor yet , I am divided from another thing , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that ) much less , I am divided by my self from the Church ; but the circumstances or use give all these , and make the acception of the word such : for a breach from the Church being inexcusable , that is sinful , must be voluntary ; and because in all divisions when one part bears a small proportion to the other , that part is said to be divided from it , therefore to schismatize is to divide himself voluntarily from the Church . All this the use of the word yields ; and had Dr. H. onely stood to this , he had found no opposition from S. W. but saved his credit at least for Grammatical skill : but because he would deduce it by criticizing Grammatically , I would let him see what consequence follow'd of it ; to wit , that since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ( as he said ) of the nature of Hith-pael , and signify'd reciprocal action on himself , himself , the Schismatick , is the thing divided ; now the said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a Verb simple , and wanting an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make it signify a dividing from another , in Dr. H's critical rigour it must make the poor Schismatick be cut in two : and I much fear that all the Grammatical plaster Dr. , H's art can make , will not cover much less cure the wound himself would needs give himself , by meddling too much with those edg'd tools of Criticisms . Not to charge him with more mistakes , ( ten are enough for him to fall into about one word ) I would know why he left my ●nth page unanswer'd , which most concern'd the point . To which had he apply'd his mistaking faculty , I doubt not but we might have had a douzen , if not thirteen for good measure . Thus much of Dr. H's Hith-pael like Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his eagle-ey'd Criticism upon it , which wil make his fame long-lived amongst all future Grammarians . What follow in the next Paragraph , granting his clients to be Schismaticks , if I can prove their voluntary recession from us , is already prov'd by his own clear confession , Schism Disarm'd , p. 279. where the Reader may see it manifested plainly ; my patience is not transcription-proof ( like Dr. H's ) to stand repeating it here . But I know he will deny his words in one place or the other , as he does more than once in this Treatise of his second thoughts . He told us , chap. 2. p. 3. that Governours , being men , may possibly erre , and excommunicate the innocent ; I answered , that unless he could evidence an immunity from errour in the Governed , as well as pretend a liableness in the Governours , the opinion of right ought to stand on the Governours side , and that a probable motive could not sufficiently warrant the Subiects to revolt ; giving my reasons for it . Now the proper reply to the import of my Answer had been to stand stoutly to it , that their motiues for renouncing that Authority were in their own nature more than probable , and concluded demonstratively that it was an usurpation . But he is horribly afraid of answering positively to that point : when any Reason appeares , he either leaps out of the lists all afrighted , or else hides himself in words . His Answer is , ( Answ . p. 30. ) that this cannot be appliable to the business without begging the principal question . So that I must be the opponent , that 's concluded , let reason and art say what they will. I ask , was not my answer pertinent to his words , the Governours might erre , which was my onely business at that time ? If so , then it was most absurd in him to ramble from one end of the Controversy to the other , with his voluntary and crude affirmations , that the Pope in King Henry's time was not de jure , in Q. Elizabeth's neither de iure nor de facto Governour . May not any Rebel say the same , pretend no Right in the Governour , and say truly , that he was not actually and de facto under him , when he had renounced his Authority , and raised an Army against him ? He tells us moreover upon his honest word , if we will believe him , that the King and Bishops here had the supreme power under Christ , to reiect the Pope's Authority ; that the Pope's power was usurp't , &c. and then hiding his head under these thin leaves , he concludes himself perfectly safe till we make it appear that we were Governours , and they faulty . So that by the Doctor 's Logick , a boy , though undoubtedly held the son of such a Father , may not be whip't by him for disobedience , as long as the boy can call his mother whore , and deny himself to be his Son ; unless the Father make it first appear that he is his Child . Till you first renounced the Authority of our Supreme Governour ( let it be when it will ) you were under him , and held his Children and Subjects ; your disobedience is most notorious , and confest and that not a meer disacceptance of his commands , but disallowance of his Authority : yet as long as you can deny it , and say the Roman-Church ( your then-Mother ) was a strumpet , and had erred in Faith , she may not punish nor excommunicate you , without first making it appear you are her Children . A solid piece of reason ! Observe , Reader , that Dr. H. in all these raw affirmations of his , that not begg'd the question a jot , although he be the opponent ; 't is his privilege to say what he will , every one knows 't is his humour . In a word , let him either show that his reasons for renouncing that Authority are above all degrees of probability , which was the proper answer , or else let him confess ( as he must ) that he is evidently a Schismatick in rejecting an Authority for so many Ages acknowledg'd certain , upon slight and phantastical Grounds . One piece of wit I must not omit , because I have heard more than one of Dr. H's Friends misled by it . The Doctor affirms here ( Answ p. 30. l. 14. ) that the Pope's Authority was first cast off by Papists . 'T is strange , that the same men who nominate us Papists for onely acknowledging the Pop's Authority , should call them also Papists who disacknowledge it . But perhaps he means they were Roman-Catholicks ; if so , then let me ask , does he mean that they were of our Profession ere they renounc't it ? so was every one that turned Knave or Rebel , an honest man and true Subject formely , else he had never turn'd so , but ever been so : must then Knaves and Rebels impute knavery and rebellion to honest men and true Subjects , and say , it was they who first began those Vices ? or does he mean perhaps that they remain'd Catholicks after the renouncing it ? If his mistake be there , he may right it by taking notice , that such a renouncing is an Act of Schism involving heresy , by corenouncing the Rule of Faith. After this renouncing therefore , they were Schismaticks , and Hereticks , not Catholicks , and whatever tenets they may be pretended ro retain still , were not now Faith but Opinion onely ; the sole certain Ground of Faith , Oral Tradition , being abandon'd and rejected : unless the Doctor will say that they had yet Catholick Faith in them , who denyed all the ground of Catholick Faith ; and then indeed I shall not refuse to give them leave to hold them without Ground , and rank them in Dr. H's Predicament of Probablists . Sect. 10. Dr. H's plea of a weak conscience common to the Prostants and any malefactour . Thirteen shamefull and wilful weaknesses in answering Mr. Knot 's position that we may lawful'y forsake the Churche's Communion , if she be not infallible . Mr. H. begins his third Section very angrily , calling mine ( p. 31. ) a perfect Romane-combate with a Wind-mil of my own erecting , toward which he never contributed the least stone or timber . But what if I show the Doctor , that he hath contributed great mill-stones and huge logges towards the making this Wind-mill of his ? My affirmation was that ( Schism Disarm'd , p. 14. ) he had got a new cloak for his Schism , the pretence of a weak conscience , citing for it his excusing words , that they could not subseribe to things which their conscience tells them is false , and that it is hard to say a man can lawfully subscribe in that case , though the truth be on the Churche's side . Hence I deduced some consequence , how his doctrine excused those malefactours and their three pretended Schismaticks . In answer he calls this a manifest perversion of his most innocent expressions , because afterwards he sayes , that such a weak-conscienc't erroneous man is in several respects crimtnous , &c. I reply , I do not forbid him to speak contradictions ; for I perceive by his litle amendement he is not likely to take my friendly counsell : but let us see what those places which I related to there in the Doctor gave me occasion to say , and what they contributed towards this Wind-mill . His first contribution is , that there is nothing alledged by him , where he pretends conscience in not obeying us , but the very same will much better serve any malefactour ; so that his words may become their plea , and consequently , unless he gave us some distinctive sign of the goodness of his conscience above theirs , his words are justly appliable to plead their cause . His second is , that whereas onely rigorous and convincing Evidence can excuse such a disobedience , and he pretends none , I ought to think his conscience erroneous , and that for pleading for it , he pleads for erroneous Consciences ; and may by the same resons plead for the other malefactours . His third contribution is , that since on the one side he tells us it is hard to affirm that a man in an errour may lawfully subscribe , and on the other , leaves no Grounds to convince him rationally ( for how can any man pretend to convince him , or he rationally assent to be convinced by an Authority which tells him it may be mistaken ? ) this weak-conscienc'd man may consequently have a rational Ground to remain in his false opinion , at least cannot be obliged to contrary belief , but thanks Dr. H. heartily for pleading for his lawfull continuance in his beloved errour . Or if he be scrupulous of his errour , and Dr. H. afford him no perfectly-certain grounds to right it , but that ( as he sayes here , and his Grounds make good ) he is sure to sin which way soever he turns ; 't is likely Mr. H's good doctrine may make the poor fellow come straight home from the Probability-lecture , & take a rope & hang himself . This indeed were no great favour to a weak conscience . His fourth contribution , ( cap. 7. par . 9. ) is his position of the errour ( in some case ) on the Churche's side in some places in this Chapter ; which very thing favours the self-conceit of every proud fellow , and gives him a fine pretence to think his erroneousness lawfull in disobeying that Authority , which could not oblige him in reason to believe what herself knew not , but might be mistaken and erre in . Nay more , he very putting the Errour on the Churche's side takes away all obligation to believe her ; and by consequence justifyes all erroneous consciences . Thus is the Wind-mill finish't at Dr. H's proper cost and charges , although he sayes he contributed not the least stone or timber : so truly liberal & noble he is , that after such profuseness , he will not own nor acknowledge his bounty to his very Adversaries . Next to these faults which Dr. H. hath committed in pleading for a weak conscience , follows his sin of omission , I mean his neglect to answer my seventeenth & eighteenth pages , which obliged him to speak out , and say either I or no , to two points which are horrible Bull-beggers to him , wheresoever he meets them . The first is , whether all assent of the Vnderstanding which comes not from perfect and demonstrative Evidence , springs not from passion and vice : The second , whether he and his Friends have such Evidence , that our Church erred , in delivering as of Faith , that the Pope , as Successour of S. Peter , was Head of the Church . These two points I made account were the two main hinges , on which that door turns which must shut them out of , or keep them in the Church ; and therefore expected ( not that he should produce his Evidence here , but ) that he should have given some answer either affirmative or negative to them . But Grounds are very perillous edged tooles to meddle with , and cut the throat of errour at one slash ; which costs much hacking and hewing when a Controversy is managed by debating particularities . Again , the nature of Grounds is to entrench so near upon the first principles , and their termes are for the most part so unquestionably evident , that they leave no elbow-room for a shuffler to bestir his mock-reason in ; which in particulars ( not so capable of scientifical proofs ) especially in testimony-skirmishe , seldom or never want . And therefore Dr. H. who is of that Generation of Controvertists , and very prudent in it , dit wisely omit to meddle with these points ; though in that place he had ample occasion to treat of them . But to proceed ; Mr. Knot had affirm'd , that we may forsake the Churche's Communion in case she be fallible and subject to errour . Dr. H. inferred hence , ( of Schism p. 20. ) that it was lawfull ( if this were true ) to forsake Communion of all but Angels and Saints and God in heaven : his reason was , because onely they were infallible and impeccable . To maintain the infallible certainty of Faith against this man , who would bring all to probability , I gave some instances , to let him understand , that Infallibility in men on earth was not so impossible a matter as he fancies : Glancing also at his addition of Impeccable , since the controversy there being about our tenet , which is Infallibility , the mingling it with Impeccability was a tacite calumny , intimating to the weaker Readers that this was also out tenet , or part of it . To these Dr H. pretends an answer , but so full of contradictions both to himself and common sense , that it would be tedious to enumerate them . It were not amiss first to put down our plain tenet , which ( as far as it concerns this present controversy ) is this , That since it is unworthy the Wisdom and Goodness of Almighty God , who sent his Son to save mankind , not to first lay , and then leave efficacious means for that end ; which means ( considering the nature of mankind to which they were to be apply'd ) are no other than efficacious motives , & efficacioully proposed , to make him forsake temporary and fleeting Goods , and embrace Intellectual & Eternal ones , ( his onely Felicity , ) with which the affections to the former are inconsistent : again , since these motives cannot be efficaciously proposed to the Vniversality of mankind , unless Faith , the doctrine of them , be certain : hence to ascertain Faith , Christ gave testimony to his doctrine by doing such prodigious miracles as no man did before ; and when he left us , unless he had left also some means to propose certainly those motives to future mankind , his coming had been in a manner voyd , for asmuch as concern'd posterity ; and the rational and convincing certainty of his doctrine ( and by consequence the efficacy of it ) had been terminated in those few which himself by his preaching and miracles converted . Hence it was necessary the Apostles should also ascertain his and their doctrine by the extraordinary testification of miracles . The multitudes of believers encreasing , the ordinary and common working of miracles began to cease ; and controversies beginning to rise between those who pretended to the Law of Christ , the consent of Christians in all Nations was now sufficient to convince that that was Christ's doctrine and true , which the Apostles Successours told them they had received from the Apostles themselves . For it was not possible so many , dispers't in several Nations , should conspire to a palpablely , in a visible , practicall and known thing , cōcerning their eternal Interest . They had nothing else now to doe , but to attest what they had received : Christ being unanimously acknowledg'd a perfect Law giver , there needed no new revelations to patch and mend his noway-defective doctrine . The Company of Believers multiplying daily and spreading , this attestation encreased still , and grew incomparable stronger , and the impossibility of either voluntarily lying , or involuntarily mistaking , became every day greater and greater . In this universal delivery from hand to hand , called Tradition ( or , to avoid equivocation , Oral Tradition ) we place the impossibility of the Churche's conspiring to erre in attesting things most palpable and most important ; which we call her Infallibility Vpon this we receive God's written word ; hence we hold our Faith infallibly-certain ; that is , so true , as it cannot but be true , as far as concerns that Christ & his Apostles taught such doctrine : hence lastly , to come nearer home , we hold for certain and of Faith that S. Peter is Chief of the Apostles , and the Pope his Successour , and that the renouncers of his Authority are Hereticks and Schismaticks , since this sole-certain Rule of all Faith , Oral Tradition , now shown to be infallible , recommended it to us as delivered from immediate Fore-fathers , as from theirs , and so upwards time out of mind : which Rule the first Reformers in this point most manifestly renounced , when they renounced that Authority . For they could not have been the first Reformers , had they found it delivered by Oral Tradition . By this is shown first in what we place the Infallibility of the Church : not in the bare words of a few particular men , but in the manifest and ample attestation of such a multitude as cannot possibly conspire to tell a lie , to wit , in attesting onely that Christ's doctrine , which is of a most concerning nature and of a most visible quality , was taught to a world of Children by a world of Fore-fathers . This clear and short explication of our tenet premised , let us see how weakly Dr. H. hath proceeded in this dangerous point . His first weakness is , that he thinks Mr. Knot 's saying very strange , that , we might forsake the Church●'s Communion in case she were fallible . Whereas nothing can be more rational and solid than that position . For why may not we forsake the Churche's Communion , if she hath no power to bind to unity in Faith which makes us one of hers ? and how can she have any power to bind us to unity in Faith , unless she be altogether certain first her self of that to which she would oblige others , that is , unless she be infallible in teaching attested truths ? To answer ( as hee does , Reply , p. 13. ) she may oblige others to believe , though fallible , as long as she is not actually in errour , is the greatest piece of folly imaginable , for still the question recurres , Is she infallibly certain that she is not actually in errour ? if she be , she is again Infallible , if not , she cannot impose any obligation of belief . Hence Dr. H. may see , that unless there he some company of men on earth infallible , it is impossible there should be an obligation to Vnity in Faith : nay there can be no positive obligation to hold any point of Faith at all , unless they conspire to do so and hang together by hap-hazzard ; that is , be no Body of men , but a company of good fellows met together by chance ; and consequently there can be no Church or Common-wealth of Believers , much less a lasting one , without this Infallibility . Note that the obligation here spoken of is not an obligation to act or comport ones self exteriourly , as in temporal Common-wealths ; but to hold and believe ; and consequently man's nature being Reason , nothing but an Authority built on evidence of inerrability can rationally oblige men to assent upon that Authority . So that Mr. Knot and I shall very readily grant all Mr. H's consequence ( Answ . p. 32. ) that if there be no infallible Church , there would be no possibility for any on earth to be guilty of the sin of Schism . His second weakness is , that in excusing himself for adding impeccable , he thinks to evade , by telling us ( p. 32 ) that he conceived humane nature to be in it self equally liable to sin and errour , and so no more infallible than impeccable . Suppose it were , ( which yet is not granted ) what follows for his advantage thence , unless he could manifest that all men might fall at once into any one self-same kind of sin ? Are there causes layd in the world , or can there be , ( considering the nature of a world ) able to make all men conspire to cut their own throats to morrow ? if not , then in case this should happen , there would be an effect without a cause , that is there would follow a Contradiction : which being impossible , it must follow likewise , that it is impossible they should be all peccable in that kind , and consequently , the Doctor may learn that a multitude of men may be also impeccable in some kind of sin . Now to parallel this with Infallibility , as held by us : we doubt not but of this multitude called the Church , some may be fallible in one thing , some in another ; but that all should conspire either to mistake or delude , so as to tell so damnable and palpable a ly , as that they had been thus tauhgt by their Ancestour , if they had not , is the Impossible of Impossibles ; nay equally impossible as for Nature to fail in the propagation of any entire species ; as for all the houses in the world to be set on fire to morrow , or for all men to die in their sleep this night ; none of which can be done without destroying nature , whose causes are placed necessarily in several circumstances , and so work with variety . Yet Dr. H. tells us , ( Answ . p. 33. ) that his words are as evident a truth as could have been mentioned by him : and truly I think the Reader will believe him ere we come to the end of this book . But I hast . His third weakness is , that whereas we place this Infallibility in a Church , that is , in a multitude of Believers , he tells us , ( p. 33. and 35 ) the Pope , the Bishop of Ephesus , Loadicea , &c. and many other Governours have fallen into errour : but can he show me that all the Governours of the Church , or half of them have erred , or indeed can possibly erre in attesting as aforesaid ? If not , let him acknowledge how weak a Scripturist he is , in giving it such an Interpretation as impossible to be true , whiles ( Answ . p. 35. ) he makes the Text I am with you always , even to the end of the world , because secondarily spoken to the succeding Governours , to stand with their errableness . Hi fourth weakness is , that like those who are making a pittifull excuse for a bad cause , his unfledg'd discourse sticks between the teeth of a parenthesis , and dates not come out plain . His words are ( after he had told us , p. 33 ) the Pope and any other single man in the world might erre as well as sin ; ) that in proportion any multitude or assembly might ( the major , and so prevalent part of them ) consent in an errour , as well as in a vice . I ask , can that whole multitude consent in a palpable errour in things visible , or no ? If they can , what means that grumbling parenthesis of the maior part , and to what end or purpose was it brought , since all might erre ? If they cannot all erre in such a case , but the major part onely , then there can be some company on earth Infallible , ( to wit that whole multitude ) which is the thing in question . How much more credit were it to lose a bad cause by speaking out candidly , than to strive to maintain it by such pittiful shifts ? His fifth weakness is , that whereas he affirmed onely Saints and Angels in heaven , and God to be infallible , and I instanced ( Schism Disarm'd , p. 19. ) in some on earth , to wit the Apostles ; whom I alledged to have been infallible in penning the sacred writ , and preaching the Gospel : He answers , ( Answ . p. 33. ) that sure they are comprehended in the number of Saints in beaven , for there undoubtedly they are Tell me seriously , good Reader , and without smiling , is not Dr. H. worthy to be reckon'd the eighth wise-man ; who , when I ask him concerning men doing offices in their life-time here on earth , tells me that they are now , or were aftervards Saints in heaven ? His sixth weakness is , his second answer to the same instance of mine , to wit , that it is most true that they were assisted by Christ , so as they did not , nor could erre in penning the sacred writ , and preaching the Gospel That is , he grants my instance brought against him to be true , and himself to be in an errour , when he said that none but those in heaven were infallible : For sure if those could not erre ( as he grants ) in doing these offices performed by them while they were on earth , then some men on earth may be Infallible in some thing , to wit in things necessary for the Salvation of mankind ; which is all we demand , and as much as we profess . His seventh , eighth , and ninth weaknesses are , that after he had thus granted all that was pretended , to wit their Infallibleness in those two sorts of actions ; ( because he would be sure to say something to every thing , though to never so litle purpose , as his custome is ) he addes first , that they were not infallible in all sorts of things . What man in his wits ever pretended it or imagin'd , but that the Apostles might count mony wrong , or be mistaken in knowing what a clock it was ? Was ever such frivolous stuff heard of ? Next he tells us that as they were men on earth , they were fallible . What a mysterious piece of sence is here ? He hath already confuted himself by granting that when they were men on earth , they were Infallible , which was solely pretended ; & now that he may seem to impugn us , he tacitely counterfeits us to hold that their Infallibility proceeds as from it's formal reason , not from the assistance of the holy Ghost , but from their being men on earth , and by consequence that each man on earth is infallible ; since à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia , Thirdly , whereas my words which ( Answ . p. 34. ) hee makes head against , are onely of those two said acts , in which hee at length grants they were infallibly assisted by the confirmation of the holy Ghost ; he rakes up all the Apostles faults and failings before the holy Ghosts descent , and thinks to elude my words and delude his Reader by these more than childish evasions . His tenth weakness is , that he extends ( p. 34. ) by a voluntary mistake ( because he would still have something to say ) Mr. Knot 's words , that the Church was infallible and not subject to errour , to signify , that it shall undoubtedly be preserved from falling into errour , and that not onely from this or that sort of errour , but indefinitely from all : As if the controversy between Mr. Knot and him were not onely about Infallibility in delivering matters of Faith. Is not this a sincere man , who would make persons wiser than himself , seem so imprudent as to think the Church Infallible in judging whether the Circle can be squared , whether Sprights walk in S. Faiths under Paul's , or whether a goose-py or a shoulder of mutton be the better dish ? By Dr. H's Logick it must be out tenet , that the Holy Ghost whispers the Church in the ear , to speak truth in all these and millions of other such unnecessary fooleries ; and all this absurdity must light upon us , onely from this , because Mr. Knot and S. W. said the Church is infallible and not subject to errour , when the discourse was about matters of Faith necessary for the salvation of mankind . The like non sense shuts up his eleventh Paragraph as the result of the discourse before it ; so again in the twelfth and fourteenth the same mistaking weakness is that which gives all the strength to the discourse : and it is worth the Readers notice , that he never impugnes our tenet of Infallibility , but by such kind of forgery . His eleventh weakness is , his shuffling in his eleventh Paragraph , where after he had told us very truly , that the Apostles had agreed on all things needful for the Church , & deposited them in each Church , as their Rule of Fai●h ; when he drew near the point in question , to wit , whe●her the depositary ( or Church ) was infallible and could not erre in delivering the right depositum , or whether she might perhaps deliver a wrong one ; he flies off , and tells us ( Ans . p. 35. ) if they would adhere to that , there needed no sitperadded Infallibility to things unnecessary . Did ever Mr. Knot or I talk of Infallibility in things unnecessary ? or is this the point disputed between Catholicks and Protestants ? Good Mr. H. speak out , and tell us whether the depositary can mistake or no in delivering needfull points : if she can , where is the certainty of our Faith ? if she cannot , then some company of men on earth are infallible in delivering things necessary for Salvation ; which is the point in Controversy . His twelfth weakness is , that in going about to show how he can be infallibly certain of the books of Scripture , he unawares recurres to our Rule of Faith , though he never intends to stand to it ; affirming here ( Answ . p. 36. ) that the testimony of others founded in their several sensations being faithfully conveyed to us by undeniable Tradition , are as unquestionably certain as if we had seen them ourselves , that is , as he intimates before ( l. 3. ) infallible ; instancing , that of this sort is the tradition of the universal primitive Church , &c. Where first , if this be true , I have gained my intent ; which was to show against him , that some company of men might be infallible in attesting things of Faith , though not in all things , as he calumniates us to hold . Next , if the Tradition of the Primitive Church be infallible , for the reason given , I ask why the succeeding Church should not enjoy the same priviledge ; since the doctrine of Fore fathers being visible & practical , and so founded in the several sensations of the children , they can by witnessing transmit it to their posterity , asun questionably truly , as if the Grand-children had seen what was held and practised in the Grand-fathers time . Nay , unless he grant this , he hath done nothing , that is , he hath not shown that he hath any certainty of the books of Scripture : for if the Tradition in the primitive Church onely be infallible , I may be mistaken in believing the succeeding Tradition in this point , since that may deceive me , for any thing I know ; if the after Tradition also was Infallible , then we conquer without dispute in this and all other Controversies about Faith , since we were found adhering to this universal testification of all our Forefathers , whereas they renounc't it when they renounced the Authority it recommended , and ran to other Grounds , private interpretations of Scripture , and odde scraps of misunderstood testimonies , and still are glad to sow together these thin figge-leaves to cover the nakedness of their deformed Schism . His thirteenth weakness is , that in testifying , as above-said , he sayes the Church is not considered as a society of believers indowed with any inerrable priviledge , but as a number of witnesses , &c. As if they did not first believe it themselves , ere they could conspire to deliver it to their Children for true ; or as if the same persons may both be Beleevers in respect of their Progenitours , and Witnesses in respect of their posterity . No wiser is his assertion that nothing is here contested from the Authority of their judgments . For if he means , the points which they contest are not founded on their judgments , 't is most certainly true ; since ( speaking of points of Faith ) they are truths revealed by God , not productions of mens heads . But if he means , their judgments went not along with their contestations , but while they testified to have received them from their Ancestours , they spake contrary to their judgment ; then they all conspired to tell a ly to their posterity in things of Faith , which is impossible . The fourteenth Paragraph runs partly upon the same affected mistake of Infallibility . I asked him ( to put in him some apprehension that a company of men on earth might be Infallible , which he deny'd ) if all the Protestants could be fallible in witnessing whether twenty years agoe there were Protestant Bishops or no. First he will neither say , I , nor no to the point ; onely he sayes , ( Answ . p. 37. ) he beleeves not they can probably mistake in that thing ; Next he tells us this is no proof that they are any way infallible in all matters of fact , without all possible mixture of errour . Is it possible Mr. H. should think his Reader so silly , as to take such ridiculous tergiversations for a sufficient Answer ? My question was whether they could erre , and conspire to tell an open ly in a thing visible as the Sun at noon-day ? and Dr. H. first shuffles at that , and then counterfeits that I pretend them Infallible in all matters of Fact whatsoever ; as in ghessing what past in the late Kings priuy Councel while he was living , or whether Bevis of Hampton fought with a Dragon or no. Dear Reader , I must address a line or two to thee , and desire thee if thou beest Dr. H's Friend , to ask him whether it be the Catholicks tenet , that the Church is infallible in matters of Faith onely , or in all things indefinitely ; as in knowing the height & number of the Starres , what weather it shall be every day next yeare , &c. if he cannot show the latter to be the tenet of our Church , then a●k him from S. W. whether he hath either shame or conscience in him to evade answering the point by imposing upon our Church a counterfeit tenet , and which himself knows to be such , and then making it the but of his ayre-beating impugnation , repeating it so often ( though once were enough to move a blush , had not custome taken away sense ) that I am confident any candid Reader will nauseate and be offended at so odious a piece of fundamental insincerity . His other weaknesses mingled with this , especially his skipping aside from the question to the fallibility of private men , shuffling about for excuses , in stead of answering , I or no , with other sleights already lay'd open , make up a mess of most excellent non-sense , call'd , in another phrase , Dr. H's third Section . Sect. 11. What miserable work Dr. H. makes with that plain proposition : A Church that is fallible , and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition , cannot have Power to bind any to believe her . MY fourth Section touched at three points , ( Schism Disarm'd p. 21. ) the ground of Vnity in a Church , the groundlesness of Schism , and of Mr. H's manner of arguing to clear himself of the latter : inserting also some part of the Catholick Gentleman 's letter , which tended to those purposes . The first I show'd to consist in the Infallibility of that Authority , which justly pretends to oblige the assent of others to her proposals . Hence follows the second , that no Schismatical Congregation , that acknowledges it self fallible , can with any face pretend to impose an obligation of belief ; nor yet excuse it self for breaking from acknowledg'd Antiquity or possession , upon fallible , that is , probable Grounds . The third was , that since the Schism we object to the Protestants is charged by us to be such as involves heresy , and by consequence the renouncing our Rule of Faith , it was the weakest piece of reason that ever was reason'd by a Doctor of Divinity , to make the summe and ground of all his Answer , the denying the said Rule of Faith , ( our Churche's Infallibility ) which was in effect to confess the Fact , and to prove he is no Schismatick , because he is an Heretick and Schismatick both . For answer to these three points he referres me to his Reply cap. 2 Sect. 3. In return to which , as far as hath not already been answered , I shall give these satisfactory reflexions upon the main points ; not attending him in each Paragraph , in many of which the insipid Crambe of his own self sayings is boyl'd over and over . But first he sends three or four whifflers upon the stage to trifle it , ere the tragedy of Faith and it's certainty begins . His first trifle is , that the Catholick Gentleman calls that Mr. Knot 's concession , which is his Conclusion from that Concession . A sore quarrel ! as if he who granted the premisses , and made the inference himself , must not also grant the Conclusion ; if so , then his Conclusion is his Concession as well as the premisses . His second trifle is , that Reply p. 14. he pretends , all that was by him taken notice of , was the consequence between the Premisses and that Conclusion , which naturally inferred a third thing , that it was unlawful to forsake the Communion of any fallible Church ; and the Catholick Gentleman 's impugning his admiration at it , and confirming this main point of the Controversy , he calls a digression ; whereas it is a pure shuffling in him to avoyd this Question , which is fundamental , and solely important to this present Controversy , concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of separating from the true Church , upon pretence of being bound by her to equivocate or ly . His third trifle is , that he tells us ( Repl. p. 14. ) he may certainly affirme how this Thesis of ours [ A Church that is fallible and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition , cannot have power to bind any to beleeve what she saith , ] is no infallible truth nor deduced from any infallible principle ; whereas it is as evident a principle as any in nature , that no man can in reason oblige another to hold what himself knows not : as also that he cannot be said truly to know that , in which he knows and confesses he may be mistaken . To this the Shuffler sayes nothing . His fourth trifle is , when we speak of obligation of beleef , to slip the point , and talke of obligation to act or obey ; telling us wisely here , that A Prince can command obedience though he be not infallible . Is it possible Mr. H. must be continually obliged by his cause to such affected insincerity , as still to counterfeit the mistake of the question ? The same he repeats again p. 16. and sayes the Governours thus oblige inferiours to obedience by force of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; whereas the question is , whether the Apostles , who held that without Faith ( that is , without truth ) it is impossible to please God , ever commanded us to believe that Congregation , which ( being fallible ) might for any thing it or we know lead us into damnable errours . I know that a probability of the thing in it self can oblige a man to act ; as a sudden Alarum of the enemies probable approach ought in prudence to rouse a General to provide for resistance ; but nothing except evidence can move to assent , nor can any pretend lawfully and rationally to oblige to it , but they who have Evidence that they cannot be mistaken in what they would bind others to believe . See the judicious and learned Preface to Rusworth's Dialogues , where this point is largely handled and fully cleared . These trifles having thus play'd their parts and whiffled a while , out step the main bangers , and lay about them at Faith , it 's certainty , Church , and all whatsoever can make us rationally Christians . First , the former Thesis , that a Church which is fallible , and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition , cannot have power to bind any to believe what it saith , which stood firm enough in it's own plain terms , is by Mr H's art made straddle foure several ways , so to dispose it to a downfal ; and drawn and quarter'd with unheard of tortures , because it will not confess a falshood , of which it was not conscious . The foure distracted limbs of it , which are to be anatomiz'd particularly , are here put down by Mr. H. ( p. 15. ) 1. What is meant by [ can ly . ] 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no. 3 By Power to bind . 4. By Belief . An ordinary Reader that mean't honestly would think these words very easy : but that is their fault to be too easy ; they must be blunder'd and made harder , otherwise the Reader would find no difficulty to assent to them . But is not this merciless rigour ? The first and second ought not to have been torn from one another , being the same ; for if the Church can lie hic & nunc in such a proposition attested by her , and hath no infallible certainty she doth not , then it follows that she doth lie for any thing she knows . The same cruelty is shown in dismembring and taking asunder that one notion of [ power of binding to belief ] which was the whole import of the controversy and in treating the notion of power to bind , apart from that other of Belief : By this shamefull and unconscionable craft , avoiding the whole question , and applying the words , power to bind ( which now had got loose of belief ) to obligation to render exteriour obedience p. 16. In his paraphrase upon the words [ can lie ] he hath one passage worth all his Friends especial attention ; which is , that after he had enumerated all the means he could imagine to secure a Church from errour , he confesses , ( Rep. p. 15. & 16. ) that that Church is yet fallible , may affirm and teach false , Id est ( saith he ) it is naturally possible it may , but it is not strongly probable it will. Then it seems after all this adoe ( for any thing he hath said ) it is still indifferently and equally probable that it does erre , though not strongly probable it will ; that is , the Faith of that Church , and all that adhere to it , hang in equal scales whether it be true or no : and this solid piece of sense is produced by Dr. H. in a discourse about a Churche's power to bind to belief . Take notice , Reader , how shufflingly the Doctor behaves himself in saying , it is naturally possible that Church may erre , providing himself an evasion beforehand in the word ( naturally ) against any encounter . This man hath forsworn ever being positive with his Reader : Ask him whether supernaturally ( or by means of supernatural assistance ) it be or be not impossible she should erre ; if not , what mean't the word naturally , since he knows we hold , the Church is supernaturally infallible ? if it be , to what end , after reckoning up also there supernatural means of confirming her against erring , did he tell us in the close with an Id est , that she is naturally fallible ? As for the Churche's knowledge whether it erre or no , he sayes , ( Rep. p. 16. ) it may signify no more than a full persuasion and belief , cui non subest dubium , where in they neither doubt , nor apprehend reason of doubting , that what they define is truth ; though for knowledge properly so called , or assurance , cui non potest subesse falsum , it may not have attained , or pretend to have attained to it . Where first , to omit his declining a positive answer , whether the Church be Infallible or no , with may not have attained , &c. 't is the most perfect piece of perniciousness that ever was crouded into so narrow a room , destroying at once all Faith , and Ground of Faith , and making the Church no certainer of her Faith than Iews , Turks , and Heathens of theirs ▪ For if the Churche's knowledge whether she erreor no means that she hath onely a full persuasion , cui non subest dubium ; Turks , Heathens and Iews have that , are fully persuaded and have no doubt ▪ but their Faith is true , and so Mr. H. hath brought Christianity to a fair pass , by his Rule of Faith. Again , passion and vice can breed in men a full persuasion that an errour is true , & such a persuasion as shall take away actual doubt ; nay the more passion a man is in , the less still he doubts . Is this a congruous explication of a Church's knowledge , which leaves it indifferent whether she be rationally and virtuously , or passionately and viciously thus fully persuaded ? Lastly , if the Churche's knowledge whether she erre or no , be onely an assurance cui potest subesse falsum , why may not there subesse dubium ; that is , if it may be false , why may not she doubt of it , or indeed why should not she be bound to doubt of it ? Falshood in things concerning Eternity is a dangerous rock , and ought to breed caution , ( which goes ever accompany'd with doubt ) where the security is not perfect : now how can the knowledge that it may be otherwise found a secutity that the thing is so ; that is , is not otherwise ? or what hinders her from doubting , if she sees she may be wrong ? If Mr. H. reply that the Church was surprised , or had not so much wit as to raise the difficulty , then indeed she may thank her circumstances , or her doltishness , not her Grounds , for that her groundless assurance . For otherwise , should she call her thoughs to account , and ask herself this question , Why do I assent with a full persuasion to such a thing which I see may be otherwise ? she must , if she understand the nature of a soul & morality , acknowledge it was passion & vice , not evidence of reason which made her assent ; and consequently hold her self obliged to retract that assent , and leave off to hold any point of Christian doctrine , nay even that Christ is God , without a perpetual doubt and fear that the contrary may be true . So perfectly weak and fundamentally pestilent is this explication of a Churches knowledge by a persuasion , cui non subest dubium , yet cui potest subesse fals●m ; that is , of which the person doubts not , although the thing in it self may be false . But this keeps perfect decorum with his former assertion , that it is not strongly ( that is , it may be equally ) probable that a Church will erre , though she have used all means imaginable to secure her self from errour . After his false explication of Power to bind already spoken of , which he turns to an obligation to act and obey exteriourly ; he addes , as if the obligation to Belief were collateral onely to our purpose , that there may farther be meant by those words , ) he ought to have said , there must be onely meant by them ) à general obligation to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed . But how a Church uncertain of what herself holds can duly propose Grounds able to convince rationally or that a confest and known fallibility in the proposer is sufficient in it self to make such a ground , he shall never show , unless he can show reason to be non-sense , and non-sense Reason ; though he can talk finely , and shuffle about in general terms . I am confident the Reader will think , that the former words in that proposition are very ill handled by Dr. H. but the last word [ Believing ] comes not off so well : Death is too good for it , nothing but annihilation and total destroying it's essence must be it's merciless doom . His explication of it comes to this , ( Reply p. 16. ) that they who are so wise as to search , must consent according to the Grounds proposed as most palpable ; that is , they must believe themselves . I ask are they bound or no to believe the Church , when they have but probability to the contrary ? if not , where is their submission of their judgements , where is their believing the Church ? unless they be willing to submit their private opinions to her Authority , how can they be said to believe her at all ? Is there any easier deference than to for goe a probability upon her contrary affirmation ? Or , if he say they may have rigorous and convincing Evidence against her ▪ that is ▪ if he grant Infallible Certainty in Faith can be had , then why should Dr. H. take this from the Church , and give it to a private fellow ? As yet therefore we have found Belief , by his explication , to signify in reality no belief of the Church at all : let us proceed . He tells us next , that when the person is not competent to search Grounds , then ( Repl. p. 17. ) Belief may signify , a believing so far , as not to disbelieve . Was ever such an explication heard of ? Good Reader , if thou beest Dr. H's Friend , trust nothing but thine own eyes in such an incredible piece of fledge heresy and Atheism in the shell ; let nothing but thine own eyes satisfy there , that it is possible for one who hath the title of Doctor of Divinity to print and set forth a position so full fraught with absurdities of the seventeens . Let us count them by the poll . First , if the measure of that belief to which the Church can oblige the ruder sort , be onely to believe so far as not to disbelieve , then in reality she can oblige them to believe nothing at all , but onely to remain in an indifferency of Scepticism : for he who doubts of all things , or halts between two opinions , believes so far as not to disbelieve ; since not holding the contrary to any thing , he positively disbelieves nothing . Secondly , an Heathen who never heard of Christ , believes so far as not to disbelieve ; for how can he be said to disbelieve a thing of which he never heard ? So that Dr. H's Church can onely oblige her Subjects to be as good believers or Christians , as Heathens are ; but to proceed . Thirdly , to believe so far as not to disbelive , signifies in plain terms to belive nothing at all ; for he puts it not to signify a believing so far as to believe , but a believing so far as not disbelieve ; that is , he exacts no belief for the point , provided there be no disbelief against it . So that as before , p. 16. he made the knowledge of a Church that she defin'd truly , to be no more than a not doubting of it , which can proceed from ignorance as well as knowledge : so here Belief must pretended capable to bear the sense of not-believing ; provided that the not-believing be not a positive disbelief of this , or belief of the contrary . Fourthly , I would gladly know of Mr. H. why the same Authority which has power to bind one not to disbelieve , may not also oblige to believe : if she can propose evident and convincing reasons to her Children that she cannot erre , then she may without dispute oblige me to the latter ; for such motives are in their own nature able to convince the understanding , and unless she can propose such , by what ground can she withhold me from disbelieving , or holding the contrary ? Vnless perhaps the Doctor pretend to show , that the probable reasons for her fallibility and Infallibility be so justly and equally poiz'd in the Sceptick ballance , that none can say whether the pound of rushes in the one end , or the pound of strawes in the other be the weightier ware , or better worth three-halfepence . These explications with their wise appurtenances thus premised , Dr. H. knits them up in these two propositions , p. 17. 1. A Congregation that is fallible and hath no knowledge or assurance ( cui non potest subesse falsum ) that it is not deceived in any particular proposition , may yet have authority to make decisions , and require inferiours so far to acquiesce to their determinations , as not to disquiet the peace of the Church with their contrary opinions . ( that is , no to believe at all , but onely to behave themselves quietly . ) 2. But for any absolute Infallible belief or consent , That , no Church which is not it self absolutely infallible , and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible , hath power to require of any . Where the first proposition is certainly false , if the subject be certain , that that is false which his fallible Church proposes to him , and that it is a point which concerns salvation not to erre in : and senseless , if ( as Dr. H. seems to suppose it may be ( the inferiours assent is no way required ; for , how can a speculative point be decided authoritatively , if the inferiour be no way bound to assent , but to acquiesce onely ? The second proposition is the granting that very point , against which he pretended to make head , to the resolution also of which his former discourse hath not in the least sort contributed . So perfectly needless and to no imaginable purpose , but onely to shuffle words together on any fashion , is his elaborate non-sense . Note Reader , that in his first proposition he puts not Belief at all , ( which yet is the onely matter in question ) but in the latter onely ; nor dares he trust it abroad there , but well guarded with absolute and Infallible : But I fear not his big words . Let him know , our tenet is , that our Church hath power to oblige , not to an hovering conditional belief , but to an absolute and infallible one : nor do we fear to affirm , that the Faithful in the Catholick Church have infallible certainty of their Faith , though they cannot explicate it , or give a Logical account of their own thoughts . It were not amiss here to let the Reader see upon this occasion , what Dr. H's manner of answering is : of which his whole book is ful ; but one example once put , will make the Reader easily find it's fellows . The question is , whether obligation to belief can be without Infallibility : He quibbles upon each word , as if he would do strange things against it , and makes up , by his explications , this worthy proposition ; that a Church , which it is ( p. 16. l. 1. ) not strongly probable that it will erre , and ( p. 16. l. 8 ) properly speaking knows not whether it erre or no , may ( p. 16. l. 16. ) yet oblige men to obedience , and ( them that cannot search ) to believe ( not positively and indeed , as the Reader must conceive ) but onely so far as not to disbelieve ; that is , that her self knowing nothing properly or positively , can by consequence oblige none to believe any thing properly and positively , but to obey onely . Is not this a fine upshot of such an elaborate answer ? And when he hath done this , then he addes another proposition , Parag 22. which confesses all that he stumbled at before , and which onely was in question . Let us put a parallel to his manner of discourse . Suppose one should affirm , that a whole Apple is bigger than a half ; and maintain it , because Totum est majus parte , A whole is greater then a part ; Dr. H's manner of answering would work upon it in this sort . First , the word [ whole ] may signify a whole Mole hill , or a whole Mountain , a whole web of cloath , or a whole thred . Next , the word majus , or greater , may signify greater in longitude , in latitudine , or in profundity . Lastly , the word pars , may signify part of a Mole hill part of a Mountain , part of a web , &c. This done , he would joyn these together , which are not the things in question , ( as he did in the former of his two proposition ) and tell us , that speaking of a Mole-hill and a Mountain , 't is certain , that part of a Mountain may not be greater than a whole Mole-hill , and so likewise part of the web of cloth to wit , a whole thred , may not be greater in longitude than the whole web . Then coming to the question , adde a parallel to his second proposition , and conclude in these words ; But as for an Apple and it's part , speaking of the quantity belonging to a body , that is profundity or bulk , 't is granted that the whole Apple is greater than the half one : which might as well have been granted at first , and have excused all this trifling . Sect. 12. What the Power of binding to Beleef consists in , and how rationally our Church , how irrationally the Protestants pretend to such a Power : together with a Godly and edifying Sermon of Mr. H's according to his Doctrine when he disputes against us . IT were not amiss here , to clear this important point the better , to lay open in brief what is this Power in the Church to bind her Sons to beleef , and in what it consists . For I doubt not but Mr. H. wonders , and many judicious Protestant Readers may perhaps remain sollicitous to imagine , how and in what manner there can be any power to force & cōmand the Soul to an interiour beleef or assent . But I hope this short hint will make them see that this power is founded upon free & rationall Grounds , not a tyrannical bare command of any authority whatsoever . It is confest then , that as a body cannot be moved locally , but after a corporeal & quantitative manner , as is it's nature ; so neither can a soul , which is of it's nature rational , be moved to assent , but by resons and motives , ( whether true or false ) and were it moved otherwise , it were not moved as a thing of such a nature , that is , it would not be a rational soul . Now since pure Reason consists in inferring a connexion of two things or notions , because of their joynt connexion with a third in the premisses , and this also an immediate one ( for a connexion which is not immediate is in reality none at all , at least to the Vnderstanding , since in that case it sees it not ) it follows , that the Soul is never moved out of pure Reason to any assent , but by such an immediate connexion seen , that is , by Evidence , and consequently all assents which have not this originall , spring from impurity of passion , that is , from vice Wherefore since it is impossible , God , who is Essential Sanctity , should command a vice , it follows , that as on the one side either he has left no power to oblige to assent , or if he have , it must be founded in Evidence , so on the other , if there be any authority on earth which can evidence her Certainty of what she sayes , that Authority hath power to oblige others in vertue of the said Evidence to assent to what she shall affirm , that is , to oblige them to beleef : for this is no harder a treaty , than to bind them to that to which their own nature had bound them before-hand , that is , to assent upon Evidence . To apply this then to the point in hand . The Church obliges her Children to rest and continue in her beleef , by the same motive by which she could oblige them when they were out of her , to assent to her doctrine , so far as concerns it's having been taught by Christ and his Apostles . This motive is the proposal of her own Authority , or of millions and millions of Fathers in the Catholick Church , all conspiring to witness that those points of doctrine ( things visible and most concerning ) were received from their Ancestours , as from their , and so ascending upwards , as from Christ . The vertue by which this Authority or incomparable multitude of witnesses claims to be a motive , and to have power to convince the Vnderstanding and so oblige to assent to their word , that is , to beleeve , is the Evidence of the treble-twisted Impossibility , that this Authority either would conspire in any age to attest so notorious an untruth , and so pernicious to their own , and their Children's eternal bliss ; or , that they could either erre , or mistake in things so visible , or even contrive a conspiracy to embrace any one errour , considering the several Countreys in which they liv'd dispers't , and consequently their several natures , obligations , inclinations , interest , and other manifoldly-varying circumstances ; or , lastly , if they would and could , ( that is , did ) attest , and so introduce an errour , that it should not be most visible and palpable in most undeniable and manifest circumstances to the whole world , being a change of things openly-evident in manifest and universal practice before , and in a matter of highest concernment . These impossibilities of erring in delivering any point of Faith , render that Congregation evidently infallible which sticks close to this Rule , of delivering onely what she received as thus attested : The Evidence of her Infallibility obliges a rational nature to assent upon such an Authority , that is , to beleeve ; and consequently her Power to oblige Beleef is as firm as this Truth , that Evidence obliges the Vnderstanding to assent , which is reduced into this first principle , that Idem est idem sibi ipsi , or that Reason is Reason ; since the act of Reason adhering to truth , is nothing else but an assent sprung from Evidence . From this short discourse follows first , that our Churches Binding her children to beleef is evidently natural , just , charitable , rational and necessary ; since she obliges them upon no other Ground than that which in it's own force had pre-obliged their nature to assent , to wit , Evidence . Secondly , that no man can revolt from the Faith of such an Authority to any other , but through the highest degree of vice and passion ; since they would be found in this case to assent to another , not onely without Evidence , but against it . Thirdly , that therefore the Governours of the Church who proceed according to this power , may justly punish and excommunicate those who recede from her Beleef founded in her Authority thus evidenced ; since this recession must spring from vice , or a disorder'd affection in the will ; and vice all the world allows may be punished . Fourthly , that no tyranny can possibly be imputed to our Church , as long as she proceeds upon such Grounds ; since she onely governs men according to their nature or Reason . Fifthly , that they who adhere to any other fallible Congregation upon onely probable , that is , inevident Grounds , against her Authority thus evidenced , being therefore ( as hath been shown ) in the highest degree vicious and passionate , if they prove obstinate in it , ought upon necessity to be Excommunicated , cast out of the Church , and separated from the Congregation of the Faithfull . Reason showing plainly , if no good can be done for their obstinate Souls , order is to be taken that they do no hurt to the Souls of others . Sixthly , that all who forsake this infallible attestation of the Church they were in , called Oral Tradition , ( as did the Protestants in all points wherein they differ from us ) deserve this Excommunication ; since they left a pre-acknowledged Evidence , and began to dogmatize upon acknowledg'd probabilities onely ; that is , left proceeding to assent in that manner which was acknowledgedly rational , connatural and virtuous , and beginning to proceed in such a manner as is necessarily irrational unnatural , and vicious . Seventhly , it follows , that a Congregation which is fallible cannot , without the greatest impudence in the world , pretend to oblige rational Souls to assent upon her Authority ; since , if she sees she may be in the wrong hic & nunc in such a point , she can have no Evidence that she is not actually deceived in it , and so wanting Evidence to make good her Authority , she wants whatsoever can oblige a rational Soul to assent upon her Authority . Eighthly , it follows hence , that not onely the Independents , Presbyterians , &c. may justly refuse to hear the Protestant Church , which acknowledges her self fallible , but that they sin if they should hear her ; since in that case they would be found to assent to an Authority , without evidence of the veracity of that Authority . Ninthly , it follows , that the Protestant Church acknowledging her self fallible ( and the like may be said of all fallible Congregations ) cannot even oblige the Independents , Presbyterians , &c to behave themselves quietly within their Church , and submit to their Government . For in case that fallible Congregation oblige her Children to a subscription or declaration of their assent to her doctrine , it were a vice either to assent without Evidence of authority , which is wanting to a fallible Church ; or , subscribe without a real inward assent , as the Doctor himself confesses : they may then resist such a command of that Church , and express themselves contrary and disobedient . Nay more , if that Congregation be fallible , it may possibly be in a damnable errour , and some one or more , may happen to see evidently that it is in such an errour ; and many of ordinary capacity rationally doubt what the others see : now in that case , why may not the former make account it is their obligatiō to oppose that Church , and let men see their soul-endangering errour , may maintain a party against her , and defy her as one who would bring Souls to Hell by her doctrine ? As also , why may not the latter ( rather than hazard the accepting a damnable errour ) adhere to this company of Revolters , at least stand neutral between the Church and them ? Again , since it hath been shown they may renounce the Faith of a fallible Church , why may they not renounce her Government ? since her Faith must needs be as sacred as her Government which depends on Faith , and is subordinate to it ; Government being chiefly to maintain Faith , and such actions as proceed from Faith. Neither is it lawfull yet to revolt against temporal Magistrates upon the score of their fallibility , in case they oblige their Subjects onely to act or obey according to the civil State , because that is a Government grounded onely upon natural reason , instituted for natural ends , and plainly evident it must be obey'd ; unavoydable inconveniences following upon disobedience , which force us to confess , there 's no safety for our lives or estates , without this Obedience . Tenthly , it follows , that Dr. H's denying any company of men on earth to be Infallible , and by consequence , to have power to bind to beleef , is most exquisitely pernicious , destroying at once all beleef , and leaving no obligation in the world , nay making it a sin to beleeve any Article of the Christian Faith. For since neither Scripture nor the doctrine of the Primitive Church ( acknowledged by Dr. H. to have been built upon an Infallible Tradition ) can be evidenced to us , but by some Authority faithfully conveying it down ever since that time ; if this Authority cannot be evidenced to be infallible , no man is bound in reason to assent or believe either Scripture to be God's word , or the Doctrine to be Christ's , upon her Authority ; since there wants Evidence of that Authority's veracity , which can onely oblige to assent : nay more , he must needs sin in precipitating his assent without Evidence to ground it on . Eleventhly , Dr. H. ( Answ . p. 36. ) in another place grants that this universal attestation ( in which we found the Churche's Infallibility and all these deductions ) makes one as certain of a thing , as if he had seen it with his own eyes ; and again confesses himself Infallibly certain of what he hath seen with his own eyes : which is as much as we either say or desire . Wherefore , the good Doctor doth a● once both confirm us , and contradict himself . Lastly , it follows , that it is the height of frivolousness , for D. H. even to pretend excuse from obligation to beleeve our Church , and assent to the doctrine of his own , without most undeniable and rigorous Evidence both for the errableness of ours , and the inerrableness of the Protestants Church . By these brief deductions from that one evident Ground of the infallibility of Vniversal Attestation , the prudent Reader will plainly see , how consequently the Catholick Church proceeds to the grounds of Nature and Reason , & how inconsequently to both the Protestant Churches must necessarily goe , when they would oblige either to Government , or Faith : Since Certainty and Evidence once renounced , there remains nothing to move the Vnderstanding to 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 bese●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 th●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 manifest●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 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 cōtinued 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 rational●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 , that he is sure the Protestants are not so persuaded , nor ever had cōvincing Grounds represented to persuade them of it ; referring me to a book of his own , called The View of Infallibility . In answer , I refer him to Rushworth's Dialogues , and assure him that , if he be not blinded with prejudice or interest , he may see it there shown as perfectly as that two and three are five : And as for his Book , I find no such worthy stuffe in these , as can invite me to think an hour well spent in perusing that Brother of theirs . After this , going about to vindicate the uncertainty on the Protestant's side , he runs ( p. 21. 22. ) again to their full or verily-persuasion ; but never tells us whether this full persuasion of theirs sprung from the light of pure Reason , that is , Evidence ; or from passion , interest and ignorance ; adding a parallel , of beleeving that King Henry the eighth was King of this Nation : the reasons whereof notwithstanding he accounts fallible , because the testimonies of meer men . Whereas I account it most evident and demonstrable ; and promise him to have acquitted himself better than ever Protestant did yet , if he can show me the thousandth part of this Certainty , ( which he puts here for a parallel of the Protestant's Vncertainty , ) for any point in which they differ from us , that is , for any point which they have not received as handed down by Tradition or Attestation of Fore fathers . For , never let him expect to make a rational man beleeve , that scruing or misunderstanding an odde line or two , glean'd for the nonce out of Scripture or and old Authour , can by any multiplication arrive to the clearness of the former ample , undeniable , uncontroulable Verdict of witnesses , that King H. the eighth vas King of this Nation : much lesse to that of our Rule of Faith , being an attestion of things infinitely more importing , which a multitude incomparably more numerous had seen visible in practice ; besides other assistant motives implanted by the Apostles ( the Holy Ghost especially cooperating ) in the hearts of the first faithful , and still continued to this day ; which strengthen man's nature to the impossibility of erring in such an Attestation . This vast advantage hath our Rule of Faith over this instance of K. H's reign here : yet I doubt not to affirm , that the testification of the latter renders it demonstrable ; which I thus show . This undoubted and never yet-denyed persuasion , that K. H. the eighth reigned here , imprinted in the hearts of all in England , not onely attested by all Fathers in that Nation , but even by innumerable multitudes in other Countries , ( his foul acts making him famous , ) this persuasion , I say , is an Effect , and consequently sprung from some Cause : but no Cause can be imaginable in reason able either to breed this strong persuasion in such a world of knowing persons , nor bribe so many attesters to a conspiracy of witnessing such a visible thing , except the Being of King H. and of his Reign : therefore he was , or did reign here ; otherwise , this persuasion and attestation had been effects without causes , or ( which is all one ) without proportionable causes ; which being evidently impossible , it is also evident and demonstrable that he did rule in England . Now , whoever should goe about to answer the major by putting some Cause as possible to be in it self proportionable , and so able to produce this strange Effect , besides the Existence of K. H. the eighth ; the very position would disgrace it self and the Authour , when the proportions of it's efficacity came to be scann'd and apply'd to the Vniversal and strange Effect spoken of . Again , should a man consider this ample and uncontrolled attestation of it , and all the other motives which infer it ; as King H's Wives , Alliances abroad , Warres , Acts of Parliaments , Embassadours in all parts , Descent , Apostatizing , together with the infinite multitude of Conveyances , Bonds , Iudgments , Foundations , and innumerable such other things relating to such and such a year of his Reign ; and , after all these fully considered , should notwithstanding seriously express his doubt , that he could not beleeve there was ever any such man : would not all that heard him , justly think him a mad man ? If so , then surely he must have renounc't no less than rigorous Evidence and Demonstration , ( the onely perfect light of Reason ) who can deserve justly such a censure . It was therefore rigorously evident and demonstrable , that King H. the eighth was . Thirdly , if it be not evident and demonstrable , the contrary may possibly be such , ( for one side must needs be true & so , all truths being connected , in it'ts own nature demonstrable : ) but it is evidently impossible the contrary should be demonstrable , or the motives for it show'd not-concluding ; therefore they concluded demonstrably . The minor is prov'd clearly : for , first , it is not against any natural Science , and consequently not possibly disprovable by natural reason ; nor yet by any Authority ; for , in our case , there is an Attestation for it , uncontrolled by any , either orally or by writing : Wherefore there is left no means possible to goe about to confute it , or evidence the contrary ; it self therefore is most perfectly and most strongly evident and demonstrable , nay impossible to be deemed or pretended to be shown otherwise . Bring not then , Mr. H. this infallibly-and demonstrably-grounded instance , for a parallel of your vertible and Wind-mill uncertainty ; till you can show you can produce the million'th part of that Evidence and certainty : but rather be asham'd to pretend to make head against our Rule of Faith , ( which is of an attesting Authority incomparably more numerous , more clear , and more strongly supported by all kind of imaginable assisting circumstances , than was that now explicated ) with obscure or misinterpreted scraps of dead Authours cast into what mold you please by Id est's , self-explications , and voluntary deductions , according to the easily-bending nature of words . That is , blush to have renounc't your Reason , in renouncing Evidence of Authority ; to follow unreasonableness , in assenting upon ambiguous probabilities . After this , to clear himself from denying Infallibility , which denial was charged , and hath been shown to take away all beleef and ground of Beleef ; he tells us , ( pag. 23. ) It is evident , that beleef is no more than consent to the truth of any thing , and the grounds of beleef , such arguments as are sufficient to exclude doubting , to induce conviction and persuasion . But sure Mr. H. forgets what he is about : for to divine beleef , which is commanded by God himself , and so cannot be sinfull , not every consent ought to serve , but a rational one , nor any conviction , but such an one as is rational , that is , grounded upon Evidence of that Authorities veracity , in that which she proposes to be beleeved : which how it can stand with her fallibility in the same point , is past Dr. H's skil to make good , since if it be once known that she can erre in it , it can never be shown thats he does not , there being no certainer Authority than her self to testify certainly when she hits , and when she failes : for I hope Dr. H. will not say it must be Scripture , without an Interpreter of Scripture , and , if so , who a more certain Interpreter than her self ? If he say , she must compare her self with other Churche's , he not onely grants each may erre , but even , ( Repl. p. 15. l. 32. ) after recourse had to the said means , he onely puts here , pag. 16. l. 1. that it is not strongly probable that such a Church will erre : so that if she can erre , she does erre , for any thing any body knows . What follows is onely a trifling defence of himself for his bad disputing . He was accused by us of a Schism twisted with Heresy : he defended himself , by alledging that he held not our Church Infallible , which he knows we charge upon the deniers as the heresy of heresies . Now his excuse for this Logick is , that he put ( Repl. p. 24. ) onely a fiction of case : but 't is plain he relies upon that fiction as on a real Ground , saying there expressely ( of Schism , p 28. 29. ) that he needs give no more distinct answer than this , first , that they not holding the Church of Rome infallible , may be allow'd to make some suppositions , &c. Again , he sayes he makes but one , but yet he there puts down four : so that the difficulty is onely this , to determine in whether place he deserves most to be trusted , or which of them is the child of his second thoughts . Lastly , he imposes falsly upon the Cath. Gentl. ( Repl. p. 26. ) that he requires him at the begenning of the dispute to grant the ( Chvrch of Rome infallible . Whereas we onely mind him , that since he is accused of a Schism link't with Heresy , he ought to show that his motives bear the weight of a perfect Evidence , notwithstanding the counterpoise of our Rule of Faith , the Churche's Infallibility , and not suppose this first , and then run a Voluntary upon what he had granted himself gratis . Thus I have given an answer to Dr. H's third Section of his second Chapter , to which he referred me : In which I confess to have been larger than the rigour of answering required : but the point of Power to oblige Beleef was , as I conceived , very important , and well worth clearing ; neither do I remember to have read it in any other place fetcht from it's first Grounds , that so I might refer the Reader thither . I have also vindicated the Cath Gentl. something more particularly than I proposed to my self at first , or than was my obligation ; which was onely this , to clear those passages in him which vere coincident with mine . Hereafter I fear the apprehension of my future prolixity will not let me exceed my first-intended limits . SECT . 14. How Dr. H. defends the sufficiency of his Division , charged to want the three most principal sorts of Schism , and solely important to the Controversy . THe third Chapter in his Reply begins with curing his Division of Schism , which was shown by the Cath. Gentl. to want two of it's best limbs , and those too most useful in this present controversy ( that , to wit , of Schism from the whole Church , and from Authority of Councils ) & also by S. W. to be pittifully maimed of the third , which was against subjection to some one Superiour . His skill employ'd in plastering it comes to this , that all Schism is either in inferiours against Superiours , or in equals against equals ( Rep. p. 28. ) He should have said against some one Superiour , in the singular ; for his Discourse in his book of Schism never look't further ; which occasion'd the Cath. Gentleman's calling it Monarchical . His first excuse for his first fault is , that it is strange to think , that that man who breaks from the whole Church was not comprised in either member of his division , when certainly he is guilty of both . This it is to forget one's Logick : for , let the man be where he will , our question is of the sin , Schism against the whole Church ; which is therefore not comprised in any one head , because it is in an higher nature sinfull , and so exceeds it . Sacriledge and Patricide , according to the common notions , are found indeed in every simple theft and murther : but according to their specifical differences , by which they are distinguish't from them , they exceed them , and so are not compris'd in them . This Particularity then , and Specialty of schismatical guilt , in breaking from the whole Church , makes a man in a higher and more special manner faulty . And this is the reason why we require , that the Specialty of this Schism should ( as it ought ( be taken notice of , by ranking it in a Special head ; which was omitted by Mr. H. who talk't onely of the petty Schisms against some one particular Superiour , not against all in collection , nor against the whole Church . And here when he is challenged of it , in stead of showing us that this greater sin is compris'd in one of those lesser heads , he privaricates from the question which is about the sin , and talks of the man ; who is compris'd in his Division , for having done another sin , less than this , and not for having done this . His second excuse , or rather his continuation of the former , is the saddest piece of Logick that ever was read , and begins at the wrong end . He is accused of omitting Schism against the whole Church , and pretends he treated it as involved in another , to wit in Schism against some particular Governour , and Schism against Charity to our Equals ; which he proves in these words , ( Repl. p. 28. ) For how can one separate from the whole Church , unless he separate both from his Superiours and equals too ? which indeed had been to some purpose , in case he had treated of Schism against the whole Church , and omitted Schism against some particular Superiour , or against Equals , Otherwise , for this purpose in hand , he must argue in a quite contrary manner , and put it thus ; How can one separate from a particular Superiour , or from his Equals , but he must in so doing separate from the whole Catholick Church ? and then the wise argument had evidently bewray'd it's weakness . In a word , either he means by Superiours , some of them onely , and then he runs over boots into a Contradiction , to get out of a less fault , in which he stood wet-shod ; for some of them , cannot be a●● , or the whole Church : or if , by Superiours , he means all ; then let him show me , that , in his Book of Schism , he hath treated of that which is against all the Superiours of the Church , in any collective sense ; if not , then let him confess , without more shuffling , that he treated not of Schism against the whole Church . As for his omitting Schism against the Authority of Councils , he endeavours to clear it , first , by seeming to doubt whether Councils have any Authority . Durum telum necessitas : in another occasion I doubt not but he would extoll to the skies those Councils which deposed a Pope ; though now , because he had granted them no Authority , in omitting Schism against them , he can shuffle up and down at a cheap rate ( Repl. p. 29. l. 27. ) with , If Councils have any Authority ; for he is sure , no man can possibly oppose him as long as he sayes nothing positively , but keeps himself within the powerfull spell of an If. But let us see what follows , if Mr. H. pleases to grant Councils any Authority : then he tells us , that this Authority will certainly be reducible to paternal power ; meaning , of a Priest , Bishop , Metropolitan , &c. and this both in Provincial , National , and General Councils . The reason he assignes for his evasion comes to this , that the of fence against the whole was consequently an offence against any one there residing . True ; but must the offence against some one Governour ( of which onely he treated ) be necessarily an offence against them all , or against the whole Council ? otherwise what will it avail him ; who is not charged with omitting Schism against any particular Governour , after having put that which is against the whole Church , or the collection of many ; but , quite contrary , which putting down onely the Schisms against particular Governours , and omitting that which was against them as collected in a Council ? Did ever man's Reason run counter in this manner , or his insincerity so resolutely persist never to acknowledge any lapse ? that , whereas it is as evident as noon-day , that one may dissent from any one Bishop , in his grounds , and yet consent to the rest ; still he will needs prove the contrary , and that the disobedience to some one sort of paternal Governour , is the disobedience to all . Again , though a Bishop have a kind of paternal Authority over a Priest , a Metropolitan over a Bishop , &c. and so the disobedience of these Inferiours would be against Paternal power ( as Dr. H. calls his first Head : ) yet what Paternal power hath a Company of Bishops over a single Bishop ; or a Council , consisting of three Patriarchs and five hundred Bishops , over one single Patriarch ? It is evident then , that should this Patriarch rebel against the common decrees of all the rest , he could not be called a Schismatick against Paternal power ; and so , according to Dr. H's division , would be no Schismatick at all : since there is no Authority there which could be said to be Paternal in respect of him , himself being coequally high , that is , placed in the top of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy with the rest of the other Patriarchs , and a Father in an Ecclesiastical sense over all the rest . Their power therefore over him consists in the collective force of so many united ; which makes them considerable in respect of him , as a whole compared to a part . Now then , since Dr. H cannot even pretend to have treated of a Schism against any collective power , but against an Authority consisting in higher rank or degree onely ; 't is most evident to the most ordinary Vnderstanding , that he omitted Schism against Authority of Councils . After all this adoe he confesses here , ( Rep. p. 30. ) that he treated not specially of Schism against General Councils ; that is , he confesses his Division of Schism insufficient ; which was onely objected . No , I had forgot ; he onely goes about to give reasons , why he did not treat it more specially : by which pretty expression the good Reader is to be made beleeve , that he had treated of it specially , and onely omitted to handle it more specially ; whereas , he purposely and professedly waved the handling it at all in this Controversy ; as is to be seen , Of Schism , p. 60. Ad now , ( so exquisite is his shuffling art ) after he had labour'd to produce proofs , that he did treat of Schism against Councils , he brings his excuses why he did not doe it , ibid. First because Councils were remedies of Schism . But since they remedied them authoritatively , and with such an Authority as , in comparison of any one degree of power by him treated , was as it were of an Vniversal in respect of a particular : the Schism against them was by consequence proportionably ( or rather improportionably ) greater ; and so deserved in all right an eminent place of it 's own in his division . Next , because they are extraordinary and not standing Iudicatures . I answer , they are likewise of an extraordinary Authority , as hath been shown ; and therefore could not merit to be slighted by him . His third is , because this was not a constant sort of Schism , but upon accidental emergencies . That is , his treatise of Schism doth not absolutely forbid a man to be a Schismatick in an higher sort of Schism , so it happen upon occasion ; but takes care first and more specially that he be not a Schismatick in one of those constant sorts of Schism , though it be of far less guilt . His fourth excuse ( as I reckon them ) is , because they are now morally impossible to be had . Very good : his Church is accused by us of Shism against General Councils already past ; and Dr. H. in this book entitled their Defence , therefore treats not particularly of Schism against them , because they are morally impossible to be had at present , and for the future : though , towards the end of the world he thinks it probable there may be one : Of which divination of his I can give no better reason than this , that Antichrist , who is to be then the Vniversal secular Governour , and by consequence , according to Mr. H's , grounds , the Head of God's Church , or Supreme in Ecclesiastical affaires , will doe Christianity that favour as to gather a General Council . This , I say , if any , must be his meaning : for the reason given by him here , why they are now morally impossible to be had , is , because the Christian world is under so many Empires ; and when they are likely to be united into one towards the end of the world , unless it be under Antichrist , I confess my self unable to prognosticate . His last excuse is , ( Repl. p. 31. l. 2. ) because the Principal sort of Schism , charged by the Romanists , is the casting out the Bishop of Rome . I answer , that we charge not the Protestant with a simple Schism , but a decompound one , involving also heresy in each of it's parts . First , with a Schism from the whole Church , in renouncing the Rule and Root of all our Faith , Vniversal Oral Tradition of immediate Fore-fathers , and by consequence , separating themselves from the whole Body of the Faithful , as Faithful : next , with renouncing the Authority of Councils , proceeding upon this Ground in declaring things of Faith : and lastly , with not onely disobeying , but disacknowleding the Authority of the Pope , recommended to us by both the former . And it seems strange that Mr. H. should goe about to clear the sufficiency of his division , by recurring to our charging or not charging of Schism : whereas he has not taken notice of any of these three Schisms charged against him ; but onely of petty ones against the Paternal power of a Bishop , Patriarch , &c. which may be consistent with a guiltlesness from the other three principal ones . He promised us in his Answer , p. 8. 9. that he had rescued the Catholick Gentleman 's letter from the strangling in the birth by the Printer's miscarriages ; yet gives it here a privy courteous-discourteous pinch , by putting the Printer's mistake of conciliatory for conciliary , to be the Cath. Gentl. pleasure to call it so , pag 31. l. 10. 11. This done , he objects , that this conciliary Authority cannot with any propriety be said to be in the dispersion of the Churches . Nor did the Cath. Gentl. say it was properly so called : it sufficeth us if it be equivalent , as doubtless it is . For a private Bishop or Patriarch is no otherwise a Schismatick against them gathered together , than in dissenting from the joynt-expression of their votes : if then their votes be sufficiently exprest and testify'd , either by communicatory letters , or some other equally-certain way ; while they live dispersed ; why should not the opposing his consent of theirs be equally a Schism , as when they are united ? But Schism against this Authority of theirs Mr. H. sayes , ( parag . ult . ) is most properly comprised under the Head of Communion Fraternal , treated by him Chap. 8. 9. 10. and there called Schism against mutual Charity . Not considering that in the Church there must be unity in the Vnderstandings of the Faithful in a general rule of Faith , as well as of their Wills in mutual Charity ; the former also of which belongs to them more particularly as they are Sons of the Church , that is , Faithfull : and consequently , there may be several breaches of those two Vnities ; so that certainly he must be a very proper man in the art of method , who can think that a Schism or breach of the former , is most properly comprised ( as he sayes here ) under that latter : yet this method Dr. H. will vindicate , as indeed he may doe any thing after his manner . See his confusion for method sake , Schism Disarm'd , p. 230. To these former objections now rehearsed , he at least pretends an Answer , such as it is ; but to other exceptions sufficiently layd home to him , Schism Disarm'd , p. 32. 33. he thought it safest to give none at all . He was asked there , ( and I ask him here again ) why he omitted Schism against the Head of God's Church ? He cannot avoid by saying , that this is not charg'd upon them , it being , as he here confesses , the principal Schism objected , p. 31. l. 2. 3. Will he say it is an usurpation ? Let him hold a while , till he hath proved it , and in the mean time let him tell us how hainous a Schism it is , to renounce it without legitimate proof . Secondly , he was ask't , why , to state things indifferently , he treated not of Schism against the Head of the Church , as abstracted from an Ecclesiastical Governour , ( the Pope ) and a Secular Magistrate , ( the King , Emperour , &c. ) for sure the disobeying or renouncing this Head , must needs be a greater Schism than that which is against those reckon'd up by him , who are all under this Head. Lastly , he was ask't , why he treated not at least of Schism against the Secular-Ecclesiastical Head , King , Emperour , &c. and let us know what kind of Schismaticks we are , for renouncing his Authority in Ecclesiastical matters ? His jurisdiction , according to Mr. H. is supreme in such affaires : since then , the disobeying or rejecting any Authority takes it's measure of faultiness from the excellency of the Authority it opposes , he ought to have let us know that we were supremely & in the highest manner Schismaticks , for denying the King 's Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction . But alas ! this aiery Supremacy of Kings in sacred matters is such an addle piece of Ecclesiasticall Authority , that though they pretend it , to avoid the Pope's Iurisdiction , yet ( as it appeares ) they decline to own it themselves as much as they can , upon occasions ; lest , coming to a controversial discussion , it bewray it's weakness by the absurdity of some necessary consequence or other issuing from it . Iustly therefore did Sch●sm Disarm'd , casting up the account of Mr. H's Division of Schism , ( p. 34. ) charge him to have omitted the three principal Schisms against Government , and those not onely principal in themselves , but also solely importing the present controversy : and onely mentioning those which were not objected , and so nothing at all concerning the question . Sect. 15. With what success Dr. H. goes about to retrench the Roman Patriarchy , and to vindicate Ruffinus . THe next question which comes to be discussed , is , of the extent of the Roman Patriarchy : which the Cath. Gentl. show'd Dr. H. willing to limit , from a word in Ruffinus , so that it should not be extended to all Italy . That this is the question , is evident , both by bringing Ruffinus his testimony upon the stage , who acknowledg'dly spoke of Patriarchal Iurisdiction ; as also by Dr. H's words in his Reply p. 33. l. 2. and again , p. 34. l 4. 5. To avoid the Doctors blundring art , in which he is very exquisite alwayes , but in handling this question hath excell'd himself : we will clear the way towards the deciding it , by premising these few notes . First , it is agreed upon between us , that the Metropolitical power is distinct from the Patriarchal , and ( of Schism p. 54. l. 19. 20. and p. 56. l. 5. 6. 7. ) of a less Authority and extent . Next , it is affirmed by Dr. H. of Schism p. 55. that the Authority of the Bishop was correspondent to the Defensor Civitatis ; that of the Arch-Bishop or Metropolitan , to the President of every Province ; that of a Patriarch , to the Li●utenant or Vicarius ; and in general , that the Ecclesiastical Order follow'd the Political . This I onely take notice of as an affirmation of his , not granting it to be universally true ; nor doth he prove it was so , otherwise than by Origen's saying , It is fit it should be so . For , the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon , where this was determin'd , were held long after this Order in the Ecclesiastical Iurisdictions in Constantine's time , of which he speaks here ; and so their testimonies rather prejudice it , than prove it : for had it been so universally practiced before , what need was there of ordering it by following Councils ▪ These things being so ( as is most evident and undeniable ) let us see how incomparably Dr. H. blunders in this question . His first and fundamental blundering is , that he would conclude against the extent of the Patriarchal power , by impugning the farther extent of he Metropolitical : whose Authority notwithstanding he acknowledged higher , his Iurisdiction larger ; as the second note shows . Now , that he indeed impugned a Metropolitical power onely in stead of a Patriarchal , is manifested ; both because he impugnes this latter in the 17. parag . ordained to treat of Metropolitical power onely , ( his treating of Primates and Patriarchs not beginning till parag . 21. ) as is most visible to the Reader 's eyes , which Dr. H. would yet delude ; as also because himself confesses it , of Schism , p. 50. l. 18 19. So that he would conclude against the Patriarchal power , which himself granted to extend to many Provinces , ( of Schism , p. 56. l. 6. ) by arguing against Metropolitical , which himself granted to extend but to one ( of Schism , p. 55. l. 22. 23. and 26. ) ; and so infer the no-farther extent of the former , out of the no-farther extent of the latter , after he had acknowledg'd the former of much farther extent than the latter was Is not this a most shameful and unconscionable sleight , to mingle and jumble two Authorities together for his own ends , in that very Chapter where he pretended to treat of them distinctly ? His next manifold blundering is , to bring testimonies , which he tells the Reader here , ( Rep. p. 32. 33. ) manifestly distinguish't the Province of the Bishop of Rome , from the Province of Italy ; which ( he assures us ) could not have had truth in them , if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy : and yet not one word is found in any of the testimonies making mention of the Patriarchy , nor yet of the Province of the Bishop of Rome at all : nay the three first onely mention the City of Rome . The first is this , as cited by himself ; ( Rep p. 33. ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Let the house be delivered to those to whom the Bishop through Italy , and the City of Rome should decree it . The second , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. The holy Synod assembled from Rome , and Spain , France and Italy The third , foure hundred Bishops , both from great Rome , and from all Italy and Calabria . Now suppose , insisting on the Grounds of mine own cause , I should onely reply that they mention'd Rome in particular for eminency of Authority , not contradistinction of it ; were it not a thousand times more likely on my side , there being no City particulariz'd but this in the testimonies ? for all the rest are Regions or Provinces . Again , were the testimonies most express for the Roman Province ; yet if Mr. H. mean't honestly , that is , to speak of the Metropolitical Iurisdiction onely ( as he pretended , and as the place properly required , ) then what had he concluded ? since the proving the Metropolical Iurisdiction less than all Italy , proves not that the Patriarchal reach't not much farther . But , to come home to the testimonies , that the Reader may see what a strong disputant Dr. H. is in his own way : I would gladly ask , who told him that the City of Rome ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , The City , & , Great Rome , as it is in the testimonies ) must needs signify so manifestly the whole Province of Rome ? So that , if he infer a Contradistinction , and so a limitation of Iurisdiction from these words ; he must conclude that neither the Metropolitical nor Patriarchal Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome reach't beyond it's own walls : which being acknowledg'dly impossible , it is impossible these testimonies should mean a distinction of the Bishop of Rome's Authority from Italy , but an Eminency of his Dignity , which occasion'd his particular mentioning . Thus , the very testimonies which he produced against us , will needs speak for us , notwithstanding his prompting them to the contrary . The fourth Testimony ( ex provinciâ Italiae , Civitate Mediolanensi , ex Vrbe Roma , quod Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provinciâ Romanâ , Civitate Portuensi , &c. is indeed a fit testimony for Dr. H. to blunder in , being not intelligible in the Latin , and ( as he cannot but know ) very corrupt : especially being held for such in naming the Bishops which met there . And were it beyond exception , yet is it very explicable to mean the Pop'es Metropolitical Iurisdiction , never so much as naming his Patriarchal . His third blundering is his self-contradiction ; a necessary evil accompanying always the defence of a bad cause . All his endeavours hitherto had been bent to limit the Pope's Patriarchy to a particular Province of Italy ; building still all the way upon the necessity that the Ecclesiastical Order should follow the Political : yet , treating of Primates and Patriarchs , ( of Schism , p. 54. ) he gives such doctrine as , upon the same grounds , must needs conclude that the said Patriarchy did extend to all Italy . He tells us there , that Constantine the great instituted four Praefecti Praetorio ; two in the East , as many in the West : of the Western , one at Rome , another at Triers . Now then , let the Ecclesiastical Order ( as Mr. H. will have it ) follow the Political ; and we must have some Ecclesiastical Governour at Rome of equally-extended and correspondent Authority to the Praefectus Praetorio at Rome , that is , to all Italy at least : This could not be ( as he confesses ) Metropolitical Authority in the Bishop of Rome ; therefore a Patriarchal one . The Pope's Patriarchy then even according to his own Grounds , included all Italy ; nay all the West , except that part which the pretended Patriarch of France must be imagin'd upon the same Grounds to have had . And since the Praefect at Triers was called ( of Schism , p. 54. ) Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum , ( as Dr. H. confesses ; ) consequently to his Grounds , it must follow , that the Ecclesiastical power corresponding to this Political must have onely France under him ; the other at Rome , all the West besides . So that at unawares , though he will not grant his Patriarchy to extend to the whole West , which is his due ; yet Mr. H's own grounds grant the Pope all but France , which is ten times more than the Suburbicarian Province , his former too niggardly allowance . If he reply that the Patriarchal power corresponds to the Vicarij onely , and not to that of the Praefecti Praetorio : then , besides that all his Grounds of the necessary proportion of the Ecclesiastical to the Secular power totter , which hold not in the main subordinate Magistrate , to wit the Praefectus Praetorio , to whom he will have no Ecclesiastical dignity correspond ; besides this , I say , his foresaid testimony of Origen cited for him , Reply 14. is absolutely against him . So sad a piece of Scholarship it is to cite Testimonies without first laying Grounds , which onely can make testimonies hang together . Out of which it is evident , that all the strength of his pretended limitation of the Pope's Patriarchy , is finally reduced to that Authority from Ruffinus . Now then as for Ruffinus his testimony , saying that the Bishop of Rome was by the Nicene Canon authoriz'd , Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerere , this being the main business which occasion'd this debate , and gave birth to this imagin'd limitation of the Pope's Patriarchate , we shall take a litle pains to fetch it from it's first Grounds , by showing the sense of that Canon : by which will be seen how great a knave this Paraphrast was whom Dr. H. pretends to vindicate . The words of the Council , upon which this Interpreter works are these : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . To which I cannot imagin a sense more proper than this , that the Bishops of Egypt , Lybia and Pentapolis should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria , because the Pope had used to hold them for so . The reason of my conjecture is , because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quandoquidem , manifests that the words following are the reason of the Decree precedent . This being so , who sees not how pittifully this discourse hangs together , that those Bishops shall be under the Patriarch of Alexandria , seeing the Pope hath under him I cannot tell what or whom ? whereas ( however our Adversaries may pretend the material sense of one of the parts false , yet ) themselves must confess , that there is no difficulty in the formal coherence of the whole , if it be supposed to signify thus , That he shall have those for his Subjects , because the Pope is accustomed to hold them for such or to judge it so . This is yet more confirm'd , because in both Languages it is evident that the Latine Hoc and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot possibly refer any thing , but the thing decreed ; to wit , that the Bishops named should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria . This explication holding , ( and hold it must till Mr. H. can show me a better , that , is , another which shall agree better with the words , and make better sense ; which will be never ) two things follow for us : First , that it was the Pope's custome to handle and judge matters belonging to the Patriarchy of Alexandria : Next , that the Council govern'd it self in this important matter by the custome of the Bishop of Rome : Both which infer , in all probability , his higher Authority , and make for us , though intended otherwise . Some Interpreters indeed are of opinion that this Canon was intended to order the Iurisdiction of the Patriarchs : but this is a perfect Chimerical imagination , originiz'd from the invētion of those whose hatred against the Church of Rome , occasion'd by their own guilt , made them willing to say any thing in prejudice of Her , though without all Ground either in the letter of the Canon ( as hath been shown ) or in the history of the Councils : for , nothing is more evident in this latter , than that there was treated in the cause of Meletius Bishop of Licopolis ●n Egypt , who refused to be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria ; and therefore that Canon chiefly touches th●t Patriarchy , of which also the particulars are there specify'd : nothing being order'd there concerning either Antio●h or the West , but that their priviledges ( that is , what by custome they had gotten ) should he conserved and continued ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . These things standing thus , no man , unless driven by the desperate condition of his cause to catch at any thing , can gather any such sense out of the words of the Canon . Notwithstanding , 't is granted that Schismaticks commonly make this Interpretation of it : whose opinions were they any thing prejudicial to our Cause , ( as they are not , but most weak , being of Adversaries ; ) yet they are made incomparably weaker by having Ruffinus for their Patron and first Founder of this Interpretation : Who also ( to come nearer our question ) proceeding upon this former conceit , added the word Suburbicarias , without all Ground or show of Ground ; whether out of silliness and ignorance of propriety of Speech , meaning to signify by that word all the Western Churches under the Empire of the City of Rome , ( whose subjection to the Pope his eyes testify'd and other Schismaticks confess ; ) or out of knavery and malice , it is uncertain : This , by the way , is certain , that an irregular proceeding and miscarriage , sprung from both , may justly be expected from Ruffinus . But , because this language of mine against this Paraphrast may be imagin'd to have sprung from passion , by Dr. H. and some of his particular Friends ; who , proceeding upon their Ground of uncertainty and indifferency of Religion , have got a conceit that the preserving of courtesy is more worth than the preserving of souls from eternal damnation ; and that , though one who does such a mischief be a knave and a fool both , yet he cannot without incivility and scurrility be shown plainly to be either : again , because Mr. H. is such a veneratour of Antiquity , that he deemes any testimony , nay any one obscure word of any either old-knave or old-fool ( provided he lived but in the ancient times ) very competent to found his Religion on , and worthy his vindication , so it seem for his purpose : we will see whether the character given Ruffinus by other Authours beyond all exception be more moderate than S. W's , & what unanswerable prejudices are producible against this Paraphrast & his testification , which Dr. H. here undertakes to vindicate . First S. Hierom tells us , ( contra Ruff. Apol. 2. ) that Ruffinus was excommunicated and cauteriz'd for heresy , to wit , Origenism and Pelagianism , and that by Pope Anastasius , as appeares both by the letter of the said Pope to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem , as also by the same S. Hierom , ( ibid ) upbraiding him , that he so fled the judgement of the City of Rome , that he rather ●hose to abide the siege of the Barbarians ( to wit , in Aquil●ia , besieged by Alaricus , whither Ruffinus had retired himself ) than the sentence of a peaceable Town . And again , in the same book , speaking of Ruffinus his Confession of his Faith , which he feigned to have been approved by the Bishop of Italy , he asks him how Italy should approve that which Rome had rejected , and how the Bishops should receive that which the Apostolick See had condemned ? Adde to these ( which makes his prejudice most notorious , and so his testimony most invalid ) that he writ his History after the entrance of Alaricus into Italy : that is , under the Popedome of Innocentius , Successour of Anastasius : and so had as much reason to write in prejudice of that See , as an incorrigible and obstinate Heretick could have : having been excommunicated by the same See before he writ . Hence it is that he never meets with any occasion to speak of the Pope and Church of Rome , but he spits his venome , as may appear Euseb . hist . Eccles . l. 5. cap 24. where , speaking of Pope Victor , he adds of his own , in one place , one whole line , in another two in his prejudice . Is not this then a fit Authou● to be first alledged , afterwards vindicated by his fellow-brother and Friend Dr. H. who , for no less guilt , stands excommunicated by the same Church ? Thus much for his passion and prejudice , which make his knavery very credible : now . Secondly , as for his doltish ignorance , he was the Monster of that and all future ages for eminency in that talent . Some instances of it may be ; that he ( in hist . Eccles . Euseb . l. 1. c. 1. ) makes of Iames Bishop of Hierusalem , Iames Bishop of the Apostles ; of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which signifies Happy , a Saint by name Macarius ; of Eusebius of Pamphilus , Heretick and Arian , Pamphilus Catholick and Martyr ; of Xystus , Pythagorian and Pagan Philosopher , Xystus Pope and Martyr ; of Chorepiscopus ( spoken of by the eighth Canon of the Council of Nice ) the vacant place of a Bishop : and such innumerable others ; that St. Hierom ( ibid. ) affirmed him to be so unskilfull in either language , that he was taken for a Greek by the Latines , and for a Latin by the Grecians . Must not he be a very wise man , who sticks not , first to build upon , next to vindicate so wise an Authority ? Yet knavery and folly are less intolerable , if practised modestly and warily : but temerity and audacity are the gallantry of Ruffinus his former faults ; he practises them when and where he pleases ; and so his testimony becomes more perfectly fit for Dr. H's cause . S. Hierom ( ibid. ) challenges him , that he knew in his conscience , how he added , detracted , and changed things as he listed . Erasmus , in his Preface upon S. Hilary , sayes that Ruffinus took to himself , not the liberty of an Interpreter , but the licence of a Contaminatour of other men's writings . And ( Annot. in Chron. Euseb . anno MMLXV . ) Scaliger notes it to be his custom to omit , pervert and change the texts , as he pleased . Lastly , if Dr. H. yet makes account he can vindicate the sufficiency of Ruffinus his Authority against so many opposers ; I will adde for an upshot the words of their most famed Daillé , ( against whom I am sure he will not take up cudgels ; being a person so highly commended by the Lords Falkland , and Dighy , ) who ( l. 2. c. 4. ) characters Ruffinus to be , an arrant woodden statue , a pittiful thing , one that had scar●e any reason in what he said , and yet much less dexterity in defending himself . Let the Reader judge then how desperate that cause must be , which drives it's Patrons to rely upon such a barbarous , heretical , malicious , and silly fellow's Authority ; who wanted both ordinary learning , and common honesty , the onely things which can give him any Authority at all ; and this in the judgment of persons beyond all exception either of ignorance or prejudice . This miserable and ruinous testimony , upon which yet our Adversaries build so much , being resolv'd into the rubbish of Ruffinus his defects ; it would not be much amiss to try whether our testimonies for the Pope's Patriarchy over all the West be establish't upon better Authority , than this which gave the ground of retrenching it to Ruffinus his followers . St. Basil , speaking ( Basil . Epist . 10. ) of him as Patriarch , calls him The Coryphaeus ( or Head ) of the Western Churches . S. Hierom makes account that , ( Hier. ad Marc. Presb. Celed . Epist . 77. ) to be condemned with Pope Damasus & with the West , is the self-same thing . But , because the testimony of Adversaries is freest from favour and partiality ; the satisfaction given by such is much more ample and valid . To these therefore let us have recourse ; I mean the Greek Schismaticks : who , though the competition between the Eastern and Western Church provoked them to retrench the Pope's Patriarchat as much as they could possibly justify ; yet they freely and ingenuously grant , that it contained anciently all the Provinces of Italy , Spain , France , Germany , England , Illyricum Occidentale , under which were understood Dalmatia , Hungary , and other neighbouring Provinces . Our first Testimony shall be that of Nilus , Archbishop of Thessalonica ( de prim Pap. ) in that very book in which he disputes against the Latins . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Canon of the Council of Nice thinks fit that the rules of the Fathers be confirmed , who have distributed to every Church their Priviledges ; to wit , that some Nations be under the Bishop of Alexandria , others under the Bishop of Antioch , &c. and to the Bishop of Rome the same is given , to wit , that he govern the Occidental Nations . The second shal be of Zonaras , a Greek Schismatick and Commentatour , living long before Nilus ; who , in his exposition of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice , ( the same to which Ruffinus added his conceit of Suburbicarian , and thence gave occasion to his imagin'd limitation of the Pope's Patriarchy , before spoken of ( hath these words : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. The Council ordaines that the Bishop of Alexandria have the superintendency of Egypt , Libya , and Pentapolis , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : as the ancient custome had given to the Bishop of Rome , to grovern the Provinces of the West . The third testimony shall be of the same Zonaras , ( in Concil . Sard. Can. 5● ) which proceeds farther and grants him , over and above all the Provinces of the Western Empire , almost all those Provinces of the Eastern also which lay westwardly . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . To the Roman Church ( saith he , writing his Comment upon the fifth Canon of the Council of Sardica ) were then subject all the Western Churches , to wit , those of Macedonia , Thessalia , Illyricum , Epirus , which were afterwards subjected to the Church of Constantinople . Here thou seest , Reader , three testimonies , in themselves most ample and express , of Authours beyond all pretence of partiality towards us ; whose interest and passion ought rather have obliged them to detract than superadde to the Pope's Iurisdiction . Not were they less secure from opinion of ignorance ; the quality of Archbishop in one of them , and of profest Writers for the Greeks in both , rendering them not liable either to exception of supineness , or want of knowledge . Iudge then again , how bad that cause must be , which can oblige men , rational enough in other businesses , to refuse assent to a Verdict thus qualify'd , and adhere to a bare word , capable of a different ( and so unprejudicial ) signification , as coming from an Authour so intolerably barbarous as this Ruffinus hath been shown : or , if meant in that stricter signification , can yet claim no credit ; as being onely his word who hath been manifested , by witnesses beyond exception , to have lost his indifferency , sincerity , nay all shame and honesty together with his Faith. I hope the Candid Reader will gather what stuff is to be expected from that Treatise , de Suburbicariis regionibus , which Dr. H. ( Repl. p. 35. ) is pleased to call a Tract , and afford it the Epithet of learned : and how wise or sincere a person Lescaserius is , though styled here by Dr. H. most Excellent , who undertakes to vindicate this Ruffinus ; but , with such weak arguments , as , were it not out of my way to confute that Treatise , I would undertake to manifest they neither argue too much learning , nor any excellency at all in the study of Antiquity in that point ; unless that excellency were corrupted by a passionate insincerity : though I know any thing is excellent which makes excellently well for Dr. H's purpose , or does any excellent prejudice to Rome . Sect. 16. Dr. H's fruitless endeavours to prove the Pope ( as he calls it ) no Summum Genus , from the pretended denial of Appeales , and the denial of Names or Titles , as also how weakly he argues against that demonstrably-evident Authority . THe Pope's Patriarchy being thus limited to litle more than nothing , his chief Pastourship must in the next place be totally annihilated : against which Mr. H. ( as the nature of Schism requires ) hath so much the greater spite , by how much it is higher in Authority than the Patriarchy . This he doth de professo afterwards : here , on the by onely , ( of Schism p. 59 ) telling us , that there was none over the Patriarchs but the Emperour onely ; which he proved , because they use to gather Councils . His Disarmer broke the reeds of the testimonies he produced , by shewing them unable to conclude , unless they prove that the Emperour did it without the Pope's signifying such their desires to them ; next , that if they did it without this , they did it lawfully ; and lastly , that , were both proved , it was not necessarily consequent , that the Pope had therefore no Authority over the Church , since there might be other Acts of Vniversal Authority besides gathering of Councils . For answer , Dr. H. refers me to his Reply , p. 38. where nothing at all is found to strengthen the two former weaknesses of his consequences : nor yet indeed the latter , since he does not undertake to show that there can be no other Acts of supreme Authority besides gathering of Councils ; which if there can , then those Acts can denominate the Pope Head of the Church , notwithstanding the defect in the nor performance of the other ; and , by consequence , his argument of not being Head of the Church , from not gathering Councils , is at an end . Yet something he pretends here , to make good this latter defect ; to wit , that this Authority of Convoking Councils is inseparable from the supreme power , is most characteristical of it , &c. Whereas indeed this Convoking of Councils is no ordinary Act of any standing Iurisdiction or Government , but an extraordinary affair , springing from some necessity or extremity ; and so , the necessity pressing , may be performed by him or them who can best provide for that extremity : Which , if other circumstances agree , is most fitting to be ordered by the Pope , whose universal superintendency qualifies him for both care and knowledge of the Churche's wants . But if Mr. H. means it is inseparable , so that it cannot be done without the Pope's express and actual orders , or undertaken by any but the Pope himself ; he is in a great mistake : For , it is very well known that in divers cases it is otherwise . As , suppose the See be vacant , or the Pope himself be unsound in Faith , be distracted , or kept in close prison ; or in case there be an Anti-pope which makes the title dubious , &c. In which cases the Cardinals have power to call a Council , or the Bishops to assemble themselves . And , in general , whensoever there is an extremity damageable to the publick , nor possible to be remedied by him to whom that duty most fittingly ( and so , rightfully ) belongs ; any one that hath sufficient power and skill , let him be Patriarch , Bishop , Prince , or private man , not onely may , but ought apply both , as much as in him lies , to prevent the harme of the publick . 'T is evident then that the notion of the actual power to gather General Councils , is not the very notion of the Pope's Authority , nor ( as Mr. H. expresses it ) Characteristical of it , or inseparable from it ; since it has been shown , that the one can be without the other . To this proof from gathering Councils , he proceeds to alledge some Testimonies , ( Reply p. 39 ) that there was not anciently , ( besides the Prince or Emperour ) any Supreme , or ( as the Doctor strangely expresses it ) any summum genus , and that the Bishop of Rome was not this summum genus . It is a pleasant thing when those men will be nibbling at wit , who never knew how to manage the knack . Would not Supreme Bishop or Governour have served , without being thus unfortunately witty in calling it a Summum genus ? and then to tell us , that a particular man is not a Summum genus . When we learn'd Logick , we were told that a Summum genus was perfectly and actually included in every Individual conteined under it : I hope the Pope's power is not found , on this fashion , in every Priest . But let us take a view of his testimonies ; which are reduced to two heads : to wit , those which would prove the Pope no Summum genus , from the denial of Appeals to him ; and those which would conclude him no Summum genus , from titles and names deny'd him . Those concerning Appeales which must manifest the individual person of the Pope to be no Summum genus , are , First , from the Milevitan Council , ( Repl. p. 39. & 40. ) forbidding that Priests should appeale to any forrein power , but onely to the African Councils or their own Primates : Secondly , from the Nicen , Can. 5. ordaining , that they who were excommunicated by some should not be received by others : The third , from the Synodical Epistle of the African Council to Pope Caelestine , in these words , We intreat you that , for the future , you will not easily admit those who are Excommunicated by us , &c. To these he addes a fourth , from the 34. Apostolick Canon , that the Bishops of every Nation must know him that is first among them , and account him their Head. I answer , that , as for the three first in general , they only forbid the Appeals of Priests from their Bishops , &c. but leave it indifferent whether the Bishops , Arch-Bishops , nay Primates themselves may appeale to the Pope : which we make account is a far greater honour to the Pope , than the deciding the inferiour Controversies concerning Priests . So that these testimonies argues no more against the Pope's Authority , than it would against the Supreme power of any Prince or secular Magistrate , if the Laws of the Land should forbid Theeves , Robbers , and such inferiours Delinquents , after their condemnation by the Iudges and other inferiour Officers , to appeal to him . Who sees not that there could never be any Government , or Iustice done , if every Priest , though found never so guilty at home by his own immediate Governours , should have liberty granted him to appeal to the Supreme : living , perhaps , in another Country far distant , not skilled in the immediate circumstances , which give the best light to judge of a cause : but receiving his information from letters , perhaps partial , or from heare-say ever uncertain ? Again , who sees not that such an easy admittance of every ordinary Delinquent's Appeal is both most cumbersom , nay impossible , to be perform'd by the Supreme , and very derogatory to the esteem and Authority of Inferiour Officers , without the Conservation of which all Government and Common-good goes to wrack ? Iustly then did the Church , in the Nicen Council and elsewhere , for these and many other reasons , ordain , that Priests should make no farther Appeal than to domestick Iudges , the Pope himself being present and consenting to it , yet without detriment to his Authority : since this eases him of cumber , not discredits his power ; for it denies not the Appeals even of Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs to him : unless Mr. H. will say , that every consenting upon rational Grounds not to execute Authory , is to disannul and abolish quite that whole Authority ; for he ayms at no less in this worthy Discourse of his upon the said Citations . And this may suffize in answer to his three first Testimonies as also to the first of these three in particular ; to wit , that they forbid him not to execute an higher strain of power in receiving Appeals of Bishops : and as for the making it unlawful for inferiour Delinquents to appeal to him , it can onely infer necessarily the unfitness that the Pope should execute that Authority , not the want of Authority it self . The second Testimony , that they which are excommunicated by some , shall not be received by others , is the onely place in this Section most likely to infer the Doctor 's Conclusion , that the Popes is not Supreme : which indeed it does most amply , if taken in it's whole latitude and extent ; but withall the Doctor must confess that , if it be taken so , it utterly destroys all Government , and his former testimony from the Milevitan Council to boot . For , if those words be universally true , then it is unlawful for a Priest to appeal from his Bishop to an Arch-Bishop , Primate , or Provincial Council ( granted in the said testimony ; ) which takes away all Authority in a Superiour over the Acts and Decrees of an Inferiour , and by consequence all Government . Now then , since the said testimony ( which indeed was mean't of the Appeals of Priests , and so is already answerd'd ) cannot serve him , unless taken in it's full extent ; nor can it be taken so whitout subverting all Ground of Government : it follows , that it cannot serve him at all , nor prejudice us . Again , since it cannot be taken as denying Appeals from Subordinate to Superiour Governours universally : Mr. H's grounds must make it conclude against us , by making it signify a denial of Appeals to Coequals in Authority onely . Wherefore , all it's force is built on this supposition , that the Pope is not Superiour , but coequal onely to a Patriarch : so that his Argument is epitomiz'd into this pithy piece of sense , as true as the first Principles ( which he must suppose to make this proof valid ; ) that the Pope not being Head of the Church , is not Head of the Church ; and then all is clearly evidenced . The third testimony , We entreat you that you would not easily admit those to your Communion who are excommunicated by us , is so far from gain-saying the Pope's power , that the very expressions of which it is fram'd are rather so many acknowlegdments of it : being onely a request , not that he would not receive their Appeals or admit them at all , much less that he could not , but onely that he would not admit them easily , that is , without due and mature examination of the cause . Now who sees not that an humble desire , that he would not doe it easily , intimates or supposes he had a power to doe it absolutely ? This is confirm'd by their subjoyning , as the reason of their request , not because the Pope had no power to admit others , but because the Council of Nice had so decreed : knowing that it was a strong motive for them , and an obligation in the Supreme Governour to conserve the Laws of the Church inviolate ; unless Evidence , that in these Circumstances it crost the common good , licenc't him to use his extraordinary Authority in that Extremity , and to proceed now , not upon Laws , but upon the dictates of Nature , the Ground and Rule of all Laws . So perfectly innocent to our cause are all the testimonies of weight alledged by Mr. H. against it ; if they be left to themselves , and not inspired with malice by the bad meaning he will needs instill into them , against their own good nature . The fourth testimony is stil like Dr. H. as he maintains a bad cause ; that is , incomparably weak and short of concluding any thing . 'T is this , that the Bishops of every Nation must account the Primate their Head. What then ? is not a Parish-Priest Head of a Parish , a Bishop Head of his Diocese , an Arch-Bishop Head of his Arch-Bishoprick ; as well as a Primate Head of his Primacy ? Does it then follow , from a Bishops being Head of the Priests in his Diocese , that there is no degree of Authority Superiour to his ? yet this , apply'd to a Primate , is all Dr. H's argument to prove none higher than he . But , it is pretty to observe in what strange words he couches his inference from hence ; which ( saith he , Repl. p. 40. ) sure infers , that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely Head of all Bishops . Observe that canting phrase , one onely Head , &c His intent here manifestly was to show no degree of Authority Superiour to Patriarchs : to prove this he alledges this testimony now agitated ; and then , because he saw it would not carry home to the mark be aymed it at , he infers warily , that the Pope is not the one onely Head of all Bishops . By which expression he prepares an evasion beforehand , when the inconsequence of his discourse from the said testimony shall be ob●ected ; or else would persuade the unwary Reader , that we hold the Pope so Head of the the Church , as that we admit not Primates to be Head of the Bishops under them : Whereas our tenet is , that as Primates are immediate Heads of the Metropolitans , so the Pope is Head or Superiour over Primates ; and by consequence Supreme over the whole Church : yet so Supreme , as he leaves to Subordinate Governours their Headship inviolate over their proper Inferiours . Thus much to his Testimonies concerning Appeals , His other manner of arguing against the Pop'es Supremacy or his being a summum genus is , from names and titles deny'd him . The first testimony is from Decret . part . 1. dist . 99. cap. 3. that Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum , vel summus Sacerdos ; that the Bishop of the first Seat ought not to be called Prince of the Priests , or Supreme Priest ( which the African Council confirms with , aut aliquid eiusmodi ; ) sed tantum primae sedes Episcopus , The second is from the same place , cap. 4. Nec ●●iam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus . The third , from the Epistle of Pope Pelagius , Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur , &c. No Patriarch must use the title of Vniversal ; for if one Patriarch be called Vniversal , the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest . The fourth is , their thred-bare and often answered testimony of Saint Gregory , refusing the title of Vniversal Bishop . But , first , these testimonies come short of what they are intended for , in this , that none speaks of the right of Iurisdiction , but onely of names and titles ; as appears by the words , appelletur , appellandus , Vniversalitatis vocabulo , superbae appellationis verbum , in the testimonies : which denote no exception against any Authority , but against the titular expression of it onely , which sounded proudly , and seem'd inconvenient and new at that time . Secondly , it is a great weakness in understanding the nature of words , not to advert that the vogue of the world altering from plainess to complementalness , as it does stil daily , the same word may be used without fear of pride at one time , which could not at another ; nay the same thing may be fitly signify'd by some word , at some time , which cannot be signify'd by the same at another : as for example , Tyrannus once was proper for a King , ruling according to law and right ; which now is not competent but to him who rules arbitrarily against both ; or rather indeed , once it signify'd a power , now it signifies a vice . Thirdly , this seems to have been the case of our word Vniversalis Papa , at least in S. Gregory's time ; when that expression , if taken in a due sense , sem'd tolerable , both by the example given in the Council of Chalcedon in order to Pope Leo , and also by Eulogius Patriarch of Alexundria's letter , giving it to Pope Gregory : but 't was refused by that prudent and humble Pope , because the proud Patriarch of Constantinople usurp't it in an illegitimate and intolerable sense . Fourthly , the sense of that title in the testimonies objected being evidently this , that none could be Patriarchs but himself ; as appears by Pope Pelagius his Epistle cited here by Gratian , quia si unus Patriarcharum Vniversalis dicatur , Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur ; and the like in S. Gregory's expression to Eulogius , when he refused it : this , I say , being evident ; and it being on the other side no less evident that our tenet concerning the Pope's Authority is not , that it is of such a nature as debars others subordinate degrees , and , in particular , Patriarchs and Bishops , to be truly what they are called ; it is likewise evident , that our meaning , when we apply it to the Pope , is different quite from the signification the objectors take it in . Now that the Pope's Authority , as held by Catholicks , hinders not others to remain still Patriarchs , is most plain : For , we grant him onely such an higher degree of power over Patriarchs , as an Arch-Bishop hath over a Bishop ; from which superiory over them it follows that he is Supreme in God's Church . As then , the placing an Arch-Bishop over Bishops doth not un-bishop them ; so neither doth the exalting the Pope's Anthority above Pa●●iarchal destroy the notion of a Patriarch : but each of them retains their compleat limits of Power in the Church , notwithstanding their subordination to their Superiour : and consequently , the testimonies are not a jot to the Doctor 's purpose ; since they declare themselves to mean one thing , and he brings them to denote a quite different matter . Fifthly , had not the Testimonies declared themselves to mean otherwise than we do , yet ( to show more the miserable weakness of this testimony-gleaner ) it were no such great wonder that S. Gregory ( such was his humility ) should deny to accept what was due to him . A plain instance of this may be found . 4. Epist . 31. where he denyes himself even to be a Priest . Sixthly , whoever reads his Epistles sent throughout the whole Church , it is impossible but he should see that , however he deny'd the word of Vniversal Bishop , which sounded then proudly , yet he both practised and challenged the thing it self , that is , the Papal Iurisdiction , which we now mean by that word ; notwithstanding his profound humility , which made him never desire to stand upon his power , but when it was necessary . A perfect instance of this is found , 7 Epist . 65. Ind. 2. where he sayes , Si qua culpa , &c. If there be any fault or crime found in Bishops , that every Bishop is subject to the Apostolical See ; but when their fault doth not exact it , ( that is , make it necessary for him to use his Authority ) . that then , upon the account of humility , all were his Equals . See also l. 7. Epist . 64. where he puts it as undoubted , that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolical See ; and this to be acknowledg'd by the Emperour and by the Bishop of Constantinople himself . See another most express Testimony to the same purpose , lib. 5. Epist 24. to Marinianus Bishop of Ravenna . Seventhly , those words , Ne● eti●m Romanus Pontifex Vniversalis est appellandus , are not found either in the Council of Ca●●hage it self , or in the ancient Copies , but are Gratian's addition onely : wherefore they are to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took th●m ; whose Epistle he cites to make good those words . Eighthly , equivalent terms to what we mean by those words were far more anciently given to the Bishop of Rome Zephyrinus by Te●tullian , lib. 1. de pudicitia ; where de calls him Pontifex maximus & Episcopus Episcoporum . Ninthly , and lastly , to put this whole business out of doubt , Dr. H's own dear Friend , Balsamon , a Greek Schismatick , confesses ( and surely he knew as well as Dr. H. ) that that Title was forbidden , to take away the Arrogancy of Names ; and that for that reason many Patriarchs did style themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , vile and base . See Bals . in Conc. Carth. 3. Cant. 42. Where , though he mingles something of his own Schism , yet thus far is clear for me , that the name or title was onely treated there , nor the thing or Iurisdiction ; about which our controversy being , Dr. H. ought to have brought testimonies impugning it , not a bare name onely . Calculate these manifold weaknesses , kind Reader , with thy understanding ; and then tell me , if it must not be a most desperately ▪ weak cause which can drive it's Patrons to cast their strongest hopes upon such testimonies , which ( to omit other frailties ) declare themselves and are confest by our bitterest Adversaries not to mean the thing or Iurisdiction , ( the onely matter in debate , ) but the Phrase of titular appellation onely : which shows plainly , that the Objecter's intent was to bring the question of the solid power and Authority , into the Logomachy and word-skirmish of an aiery title . So that Dr. H. payes his Reader with the same coyn , as that hungry fellow did ; who , having satisfy'd himself with the smell of the Cook 's meat , pay'd his exacting host with the sound of the money in stead of the substan●e . But now , it being firmly settled by the former frothy Argument , that the Pope had anciently no Vniversal Authority ; he proceeds to show when this strange Vsurpation impower'd it self over the whole Church . And this he does from Paulus Diaconus , de gestis Romanorum , l. 18. who ( as he pretends ) tells us , that Boniface the third , with much adoe , obtained an Edict of Phocas the Emperour to that purpose . Where , if he meanes that the name and title , before forbidden , were then first allowed by him ; what follows against us , who maintain a real Power , not a verbal title ? But , if he means that the Supreme Iurisdiction over the whole Church was then given by Phocas : then , besides that this Iurisdiction we dispute of is over Kings and Emperours , as well as others , in Ecclesiastical matters , and so not likely to be given by Phocas the Emperour ; we must be put to imagin ( which will cost us no less then perfect madness , ●re we shall be able to doe it , ) upon the blind and bare affirmation of an obscure Sentence , that an Vniversal Government in Ecclesiastical matters over the whole Christian world could be introduc't ( nay held o● Faith , and to have come from Christ ) without any visible effects of siding , opposing , deprecating , submitting , complaints , applauses , on the one side and the other ; together with change of Ecclesiastical Laws , and the temporal also as concern'd in the Ecclesiastical , and millions of other particular changes included in , and dependent on these general ones ; no effect of it at all being notorius , but onely a testimony , ( or perhaps two ) in a rumour-grounded History-book . If the Doctor would persuade us , that the Supreme Iurisdiction of Rome was then introduc't , let him show effects proportionable to such a novelty of usurpation in things of highest concernment ; that is , such effects as in all reason were likely to issue out of that cause put : or otherwise , rational Readers must in all reason have leave to think , that he speaks against all reason . And let him never hope to persuade any man that hath an ounce of brains in his head , though he bring twenty testimonies more valid than this , that an Vniversal Iurisdiction in highest matters could creep into the world with pantofles of matt on , without discovering it self in multitudes of circumstances proportionable to its visibleness and weightiness : that is , let him not hope to gul men of reason with words , to deny the light of their reason , demonstrative Evidence . Demonstrative , I say ; for I account it as great and firm a Demonstration as any in nature , that it is impossible it should come in unattended by universal and visible changes over the face of the whole Christian world : which I thus show in brief . The cause was put ; to wit , a novelty in the highest degree of Government , and in highest matters . The matter to work on was put ; to wit , rational Soules or men's minds , because of their diverse dispositions apt to be wrought upon diversly ; that is , to be stir'd up to diverse Thoughts , to diverse Passions the result of those thoughts , and diverse outward Expressions the effects of those passions : and all this according to the weight and moment of the cause , which was of the highest nature imaginable . Lastly , the cause was apply'd to the matter : for it is equally impossible , that an universal Government should be brough in , and all not know of it , as that is should at once be and not-be ; since it cannot be introduc't universally , without signifying at least to the Subjects either by writing or other carriage , that their obedience is expected . This being so , it is as evident and demonstrable that universal , most visible , and mighty commotions and changes must accompagny such a novelty of Rome's usurpation , as that the effect must necessarily be , when the cause is actually causing : which none ever deny'd , or can , without denying the first principles . Now , add to this , that the Protestant Authours themselves are in twenty minds about the times that this change came in , and that their best Authours beyond exception ( of which I remember Doctor Whittaker is one ) confess in express terms , that the time of the Romane Churche's change cannot easily be told , and that they cannot tell by whom nor at what time the Enemy did sow the Papist's doctrine , ( as may be seen in the Catalogue of Protestancy , where they are cited : ) adde this I say , and it follows , that no such visible effects of it's introducing can be shown at all ; and consequently , that it was never introduc't . Which as it immoveably strength●ns our title of possession , rendring it such as is not onely justly presumable , but necessarily demonstrable , to have come from Christ : so it will also let the rational Protestant Readers see plainly what it is to which their wisest Doctors would persuade them ; to wit , to renounce the clear , solid , and certain light of reason , demonstrative Evidence , to follow the obscure , uncertain , and wordish dictionary stuffe of every trifling , controvertible , or ( at best ) waxen-natur'd Testimony . Yet the Doctor 's own words are but these ; that Boniface the third , with much adoe , obtained of Phocas the Emperour an Edict for the Primacy and Vniversal Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome : See Paulus Diac. de gestis Rom. l. 18 which still is an argument that till then it had no foundation . Where first is to be noted that , of his own good will , the Doctor puts in those words , with much adoe ; whereas the Authour onely sayes , rogante Papâ , the Pope intreating it . Secondly , that whereas the Authour sayes , Caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum , in his book de gestis Longobardorum , l. 4. c. 37. ( which Book without controversy is his and plainly sayes , that the Emperour defined that the Roman Church was the Head of all Churches ; ) our Doctor dissembles this , and follows a text out of de gestis Roman . which book is doubted of by learned men to be none of his , and by the very phrase seems to be a corruption of the other , and that ut esset , is put for esse ; it being an odd piece of Latin to say , Statuit sedem Romanam ut esset caput , whereas a Latinist would have said statuit , sedes ut esset . Wherefore , 't is evident that the Doctor 's great bragging that the Story is known to all , is resolv'd into the corruption of an unauthentick text . Which is most evident by the words following in both places of the said Authour , Quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat : which bears no sense , if the Decree gave the Iurisdiction ; but an excellent one , if the decree onely defined it against the wrongful challenge of the Constantinopolitan Church . Wherefore you see that the Doctors Inference , which yet is an argument that til then it had no foundation , is so wretched , that the contrary ought to be deduced , tha it is an argument , the Authority which Phocas defined to be his , had been his before . And thus much in refutation of Dr. H's Defence of his three first Chapters . SECOND PART . Containing a Refute of Dr. H's first fundamental Exception against the Pope's Authority from the pretended limitation of S. Peter's Provinces . Sect. 1. Dr. H's prelusory toyes answered . No obligation for Catholiks to produce Evidence . The infinite Advantages our true Possession hath , and the perfect nullity of their vainly-pretended one ; together with a most rare sample of his manner of arguing . Dr . H. in his answer , p. 38. puts a distinction of his own endeavours ; affirming that he had fûlly answered my fourth Section , & onely saying that he had answered the following ones . Among these which are answered onely , my sixth Section is one , which he pretends to have given Satisfaction to , Reply c. 3. sect . 2. and 4. where not a word is found in reference to that , but to my first onely , of which he was pleased to make two . This done , he proceeds , upon this mistake of his own and the Printer's mis-ciphering it , to call my sixth the seventh ; and to be witty against me in his dry way , telling the Reader ( as if he would let him see that S. W. could not reckon as far as eight ) that I have another seventh Section : though both the Errata at the end corrected that small lapse of the Printer , the titles of the Sections in the beginning of the book might have clear'd Mr. H's head in that point , and the first Section immediately going before would have told him ( had not he been pleased to mistake it , and divide it into two ) that the following ought to be the sixth . But nothing could secure . S. W. from the melancholy cavilling humour of his Adversary : who is so terrible , that the Printer's least oversight , and his own mistake must occasion a dry adnimadversion against S. W. and yet the jest is , he pretends nothing but courtesy and civility ; and persuades many of his passionate adherents , that he practices both in his writings . For answer then to my first seventh Section ( according to Dr. H. but in reality the sixth ) he refers me to his Reply c. 4. sect . 1 where he answers all but the ridiculous colours , ( as he says , Answ . p. 38. ) which indeed I must say were very ridiculous , as who ever reads Schism Disarm'd , p. 41. or his own book p. 68. may easily see : where , after he had spoken of and acknowledg'd King Henry the eighth's casting out the Pope's Authority , it follows in his own words , thus ; ( of Schism , p. 68. ) First they ( the Romanists ) must manifest the matter of fact , that thus it was in England : 2. the consequence of that fact , that it were Schism , supposing those Successours of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ : that is , we must be put first to prove a thing which himself and all the world acknowledges , to wit , that King H. the eighth deny'd the Pope's Supremacy , next , that what God bid us doe is to be done , and that the Authority instituted by Christ is to be obe'yd . Dr H. is therefore can-did when he acknowledges here that these passages are ridiculous ; very unconsonant to himself , when he denyes there is the least cause or ground for it in his Tract , whereas his own express words , now cited , manifest●●● and lastly , extraordinarily reserv'd , in giving no other answer than this bare denial of his own express words . But , being taken tardy in his Divisionary art , in which it is his cōmon custome to talke quodlibetically ; he thought it the wiser way to put up what 's past with patience , than by defending it give occasion for more mirth . But , to come to the point : That which was objected to him by me and the Cath. Gent. was this , That he expected Catholicks should produce Evidences and proofs for the Pope's Authority in England ; which task we disclaimed to belong to us , who stood upon possession , ( and such a possession as no King can show for his Crown ) any more , than it does to an Emperour or any long and-quietly-possest Governour , to evidence to a known Rebel and actual Renouncer of his Authority , that his title to the Kingdome is just , ere he can either account him or punish him as rebellious . In answer , Dr. H. Repl. p. 44. first denies that he required in the Place there agitated ( that is , in the beginning of his fourth Chapter of Schism ) any such thing of the Catholicks , as to prove their pretensions : ●ut his own express words , of Schism , p. 66. 67. check his bad memory ; which are these , Our method now leads us to enquire impartially what evidences are producible against the Church of England , whereby it may be thought liable to this guilt of Schism . Whence he proceeds to examine our Evidences , and to solve them : which is manifestly to put himself upon the part of the Respondent , the Catholick on the part of the Opponent ; that is , to make us bring proofs , and seem to renounce the claim of our so-qualify'd a possession by condescending to dispute it . Whereas we are in all reason to stick to it till it be sufficiently disprov'd , which cannot be done otherwise than by rigorous Evidence , as hath been shown ; not to dispute it as a thing dubious : since 't is evident we had the possession , and such a possession as could give us a title . This therefore we ought to plead , not to relinquish this firm ground , and to fall to quibble with him in wordish testimonies . To omit , that the evidences he produces in our name are none of ours . For , the onely evidence we produce , when we please to oppose , is the evidence of the Infallibility of Vniversal Tradition or Attestation of Fore-fathers , which we build upon both for that and other points of Faith : nor do we build upon Scripture at all , but as interpreted by the practice of the Church and the Tradition now spoken of . Wherefore , since Dr. H. neither mentions , produces , nor solves those , that is , neither the certainty of Vniversal Attestation , nor the testimonies of Scripture as explicable by the received doctrine of Ancestours ( which latter must be done by showing that the doctrine of the Church , thus attested and received , gives them not this explication ; ) 't is evident that he hath not so much as mention'd , much less produced , or solved our Evidences . Our Doctors indeed , as private Writers , undertake sometimes , ex superabundanti , to discourse from Scripture upon other Grounds , as Grammar , History , propriety of language , &c. to show , ad hominem , our advantage over the Protestants even in their own ( and to them the onely ) way : but , Interpretations of Scripture thus grounded are not those upon which we rely for this , or any other point of our Faith. So that Dr. H. by putting upon us wrong-pretended Evidences , brings all the question , as is custome is , to a word-skirmish ; where he is sure men may fight like Andabatae in the dark , and so he may hap to escape knocks : whereas , in the other way of Evident reason , he is sure to meet with enough . At least , in that case , the controversy being onely manag'd by wit , and carried on his side who can be readiest in explicating and referring one place to another , with other like inventions ; it may be his good fortune to light on such a doltish Adversary , that the Doctor may make his ayre-connected discourse more plausible than the others , which is all he cares for : This being a defence and ground enough for his fallible , that is probable , Faith. Dr. H. defends himself , by saying ( p. 44. ( he mean't onely that Catholicks bring Christ's donation to S. Peter for an Argument of the Pope's Supremacy ; instancing against the Cath. Gent. in his own confession , that Catholicks rely on that donation as the Foundation or cornerstone of the whole build●ng . By which one may see that the Doctor knows not or will not know the difference between a Title and an Argument . Christ's donation to S. Peter is our title , our manner of trnour , by which we hold the Pope his Successour , Head pastour ; not our argument to infer that he is so . 'T is part of our Tenet , and the thing which we hold upon possession , to be disprov'd by them or ( if we see it fitting ) to bee prov'd by us : not our argument or proof against them , to maintain it or conclude it so , As a title then we rely and build upon it , not produce it as a proof to conclude any thing from it . And indeed I wonder any man of reason should imagin we did so : since ( if he be a Scholar ) he cannot but know that we see how , to the Protestants , the supposed proof would be as deniable and in it's self as obscure , as the thing he imagins we would prove by it or infer from it : which he knows every child can tell is against the nature of a medium or argument . Yet poor Catholick Writers , from whom Dr. H. has got all the learning , must be imagin'd unacquainted with that trivial toy belonging to the A , B C , of Logick . Next he goes about to prove our tenour of possession null : which he does most exquisitely , by telling us ( Reply , p. 45. ) that now they are in possession , and consequently , by the force of the Catholicks argument , all arguments deducible from thence are lost to him , the prescription being now on the Protestant's side as before on the Catholicks . Where , first he manifestly calumniates the Catholick tenet , calling it prescription : whereas prescription is a title to get a right in that which was known to be none of his before ; which is contrary to the profession of Catholicks , who maintain their possession to have been ever from the beginning ; and never to have belong'd to any before : so that this is a trick of a cunning shuffling gamester , by changing the name to alter the state of the whole question . But , to proceed with his argument against our possession , which he pursues in these words , And there is nothing left the Romanists to plead , but the original right on this side against the violence of the succeding possession . Well done Doctor , still ; 't is the luck of your Arguments against us , that they are most proper and exquisite pleas for all malefactours . Pray lend me your reasons a while , and you shall see what work they will make in the world in a short time . Put case then , that a company of Theeves enter into another man's house , and turning him , his Wife and Family out of doors , resolve to settle and nest themselves there : and , knowing the Law will call them to account for turning an inhabitant out of his possession , they hire Dr. H. ( of Divine , turn'd Lawyer ) to plead for them . The honest Inhabitant pleads possession . Dr. H. replyes , that at this time he hath no possession , but hath lost it and all arguments deducible from thence ; and that he hath nothing now left him to plead , but the original right against the violence of a succeeding possession : especially , if the intruding crew have been in it any long time , ( though the manner of their violent usurpation were never so visible and notorious ) then Dr. H. pleads prescription in his Clients behalf , and exacts of the honest man to show his original right ; which he ( his Ancestours having enjoy'd it time out of mind ) not being able to manifest , the poore fellow loses his house , and the picaros carry the cause by the vertue of Dr. H's argument against the possession of Catholiks . The same reason would doe the same service to any Quean that cuts a purse , or any Knave that takes a cloak : they are at present , ( as Dr. H. tells us ) in possession , and the right owner must lose Cloak and Purse both , according to these new Laws , unless they can prove their original right , and show how they came by them : That is , they who are innocent must be treated as if they were guilty , and forced to give account how they came by what they formerly-quietly enjoy'd ; and the guilty must be treated like innocent persons , and stand secure upon their possession . To this miserable pass would the world be brought , if men should treat one another as the Protestants treat us in this point ; and if they were no more sincere and carefull to look well to their estates , than they are to look to the Grounds of their Faith & their eternal Salvation . The eager adhesion to the former makes them account this treaty foul play , if their temporal livelihoods be concern'd ; which their negligence of eternal happiness , more obscurely & far-off proposed , makes them willing to think very fair in their debates about Eternity with us . To make this clearer , and withall to show how parallel Dr. H's Possession is to the former unjust ones , and how unapt to parallel , much less to out-vy and disannul ours , as he would have it , we will put them in the ballance of reason , and let sincerity hold the scales : premising first , that we both hold , at least Dr. H. grants ( Repl. p. 46. l. 13. ) in one place ( and that the more express , of the two contradictory ones , ) that prescription , in divine and Ecclesiastical things , is of no force : which makes his pretended hundred years in it self useless for any thing in this controversy ; it being a Government instituted as inviolable by our Saviour , not alterable or alienable by humane circumstances : which appears to be granted by us both , because they pretend to prove the King's , supremacy and the equality of the Apostles from Scripture ; we ( when we see it fitting ) the contrary . This presupposed , let us compare our Possession to their present pretended one . Ours is acknowledgedly ancient ; theirs late and upstart . Ours is such as no visible Effects proportionable to it's weight can be shown , that is , such immediate changes in the world as may justly make it supposed an Vsurpation ; theirs , manifest in such visible and violent immediate effects , and such consequences of millions of changes , as render it a palpable Vsurpation . Hence ours is obscure in it's original , and at most but controvertible that it ever begun : theirs , beyond all controversy , new , and of a late original . Practical effects clad in all their circumstances yet remain in the world , to attest their thrusting us out of possession : no such effects alledged of our thrusting them or any else out , except two or three impertinent conjectures , the like whereof may be drawn for any absurdity : and consequently , it is much more impossible we should ever have usurp't , than that William the Conquerour should have impower'd himself over England , without other manifest immediate effects or signs of his newly-introduc't supreme Government there , than that there are two or three dark sentences in the Apocalyps , which abstracting from antecedents and consequents , may be apply'd to it . The whole world agrees of the time and circumstāces of their possession's beginning : of ours our very Adversaries doubt , and are in several minds . Hence ours can justly claim to have come from Christ ; that is , to be indeed a Possession , and the sole possession in the matter we speak of : their present pretended possession is impossible to be presum'd for such , since every one knows when it began . Wherefore our Possession is so qualify'd , that , of it self , it can ground a claim , that it came from the Fountain head of all Ecclesiastical power , Christ Iesus ; not needing the assistance of another former possession to patch it up : since , no interruption of it being known , it is justly presumed to have descended from Christ , without interruption , the same it is now . Their present Possession cannot of it self even pretend to have come from Christ at all ; since it begun lately and , if taken alone , reaches not nor can pretend to reach to the time in which Christ liv'd , but needs to be piec'd with a former imaginary possession antecedent to our pretented usurpation : Wherefore , this present state of theirs is not capable of any plea of possession at all ; not consequently is it at all a truly-nam'd possession , in any other sense than as the having any thing , however it is come by , is call'd a possession . Again , the Pope's possession in England was a quiet one , without any else pretending it but himself , in opposition to him : Theirs was never quietly enjoy'd at all ; Catholick Writers in their learned Controtroversies ever pleading the Pope's lawful title , and showing theirs an unlawful and rebellious usurpation : Even this present book I now write attests that the debate is yet on foot , and the pleas so strong on our side , as I dare promise my self so much fruit of my endeavours , that no man living will say they have carried the cause and enjoy it quietly . Lastly , ( not to mention the clear advantages it hath from the testimony of all Antiquity ) our Possession is demonstrated , by the force of Vniversal Attestation , ( acknowledged by our present Adversary , at unawares , Infallible ) to have come from Christ ; at least they must confess that men not meanly learned pretend this , have attempted it , and answered the objections produced against it by best Protestant wits and strongest Champions . Our Possession then hath for it's coming from Christ rigorous Evidence , so held by us ; at least , ( as our Adversaries themselves must grant ) pretence of Evidence as yet uncontrolled by their party : Whereas the pretended possession they enjoy at present is evidently the contrary ; to wit , not come from Christ , but begun either in King Henry's or Q. Elizabeth's dayes ; nor is it capable at all of pretending Evidence for it's coming from Christ , seeing it hath Evidence against it's coming from Christ . Now then ▪ Prescription here being of no force , their present pretended possession is no better than it was after their first three dayes ; and our Possession so well qualify'd , theirs so ill , in order to the present matter in hand , as appers by these Parallels : it follows plainly , that they can have no better a plea from their present possession , than the housebreaker , rober , or cut-purse , from the present possession ( that is , having ) of the things which they lately purloin'd or unjustly took away . It is Dr. H. then , who ( Repl , p. 45. ) would give leave to every man to catch and hold what he can ; not we , who would onely have every man hold ( till rigorous Evidence be brought against his right ) those things of which he was found in immemorial , quiet and , in many other respects , so well qualify'd a Possession . By this the Candid Reader , who pleases to scan over the former parallels , will discover how weak that cause must be , which drives it's Defender to such incomparable absurdities , as to tell us that our possession and all the arguments deducible thence are now lost to us , because of their succeding possession : so making their counterfeit possession ( which indeed signifyes the bare having a thing ) preponderate ours , which hath been shown to excel it in such manifold advantages . The charitable non sense that follows I shall not think worth confuting ; after I have lay'd open our force of possession , which frees us in reason from the task of arguing , pleading , or opposing ; and their no - possession , which obliges them to produce Evidences of our pretended usurpation , and not to expect them from us : This being all that was common to me and the Cath. Gentl. and so all that belong'd to me to vindicate . Nor indeed was it needful for any to add any thing more in answer to this Section . What follows is such pittiful stuff , as would under-value the worth of a piece of paper to vouchsafe it a confute : yet it deserves mentioning as a pattern of Dr. H's wit , and solid manner of argu●ng against the Romanists . First , although he knows , and all the world acknowledges , they cast a Papal Authority out of England , and not Patriarchal onely : yet his dinstinguishing art must needs be brought in to blunder , as his custome is , with an If ; ( p. 46. 47. ) If the Pope pretend onely to be a Primate or Patriarch , &c. What If he be ? why then he quotes himself to have done strange things against him in his book of Schism ; where he tells us he hath evidenced , &c. and sufficiently justify'd their carriage against him : So strongly he disputes against us , and we must beleeve him ; and there ends the left leg of his trifling distinction . Next follows the right , and steps in halting with another If : But If the Pope's pretensions be higher , even for the Supremacy it self , &c. as every one knows it was , and consequently his former words were most frivolous . Now let us see what ground this foot of the distinction stands on . It follows ( saith he ) that , first , I may surely say they were neverbonae fidei possessores of that ; & secondly , that the King , by being so is supreme , &c. So that first he overthrew us onely with his own supposition , that the Popes neither exercised nor claimed any power here more than Patriarchal : next , by his own self-conceit that he had tickled him in that point in his evidencing book of Schism : & thirdly , if the Pope pretends to any Supremacy , he confutes him most powerfully by onely telling him , that he may surely say he hath none . And indeed 't is most true ; for nothings is more sure , than that Dr. H. may surely say voluntarily what he lists , without either sense or reason : his common custome hath now made it his proper priviledge . But now comes the last onset , which massacres all out arguments and Grounds at once , threatning to remove all appearance of reason from this whole exception : which he does 1. by telling us , 't is manifest that when they cast the Pope out , they had reasons for it . 2. that he must have leave to suppose those reasons were convincing . Truly , so he shall have leave to suppose what he pleases ; so he will give his Readers likewise leave to suppose him most weak , and his cause most pittiful , which must be maintain'd by such weak shifts as the begging leave to suppose that all is true which the Patron of it shall please to say . This done , he quotes a book of the ring-leaders of his own Schism , reprinted ( as he brags ) by one Goldastus ( a French Huguenot ) under the title of Opus Eximium : then he modestly commends to us again his own Book of Schism ; and so concludes , that he hopes it will suffice . Thus hath Dr. H. remov'd all appearance of our reasons , by the necessity of his having leave to suppose that theirs were convincing , and the quoting a book of his own Folks , which another of the same leaven calls an excellent work . Weighty proofs against us without doubt ! But , because we have open'd these Evidences of his too much ; we will fold them up into Logical forme , and there leave them . The Doctor disputes thus , The Pope being onely a Patriarch , I have sufficiently justify'd what was done here in my evidencing book of Schism ; therefore he hath no such Authority here : The antecedent is supposed as a first Principle known by the light of nature . Next , he argues thus : I may surely say he hath no Supremacy ; therefore he hath none . Lastly , I must have leave to suppose we had convincing reasons for casting him out , and my Companions think the same ; Ergo I have removed all appearance of r●ason from the Romanist's whole exceptions . With such slight talking as this , kind Readers , Dr. H. would gull Souls into Hell ; and ( which is the misery of miseries ) send them thither with non-sense in their Heads . Sect. 2. How Dr. H. prevaricates from his formerly-pretende ! Evidences . His ignorance of the way of interpreting Scripture manifested in his groundless explication of The Lot of Apostleship , Act. 1. for a lesser Province . Dr. H. in his fourth Chapter of Schism , to undo the Pope's Vniversal Pastourshi● , undertakes to undo St. Peter's first ; by showing that his Commission was limited to the Iews onely . To do which handsomly , he would limite the Iurisdiction of each Apostle likewise to certain Provinces ; lest his particular pique against the Pope's Predecessour S. Peter , should be too notorious , and manifest that his passion had engag'd him in a partiality against that Blessed Prince of the Apostles . But because this doctrine of the Apostles exclusive Provinces , ( as he calls them , Of Schism , p. 70. ) limiting their universal Iurisdiction , was so rare a novelty , that blind Antiquity never so much as dream't on 't , nor any Authour , that I can ●ear of , ever so much as nam'd or mention'd it before : he fetches the first root of their pedigree , their An est , from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the lot of Apostleship , and Iudas his proper place in Hell ; which he will have signify , exclusive Provinces , restraining the Iurisdiction or Power of each single Apostle . His Disarmer first show'd , then challeng'd him , ( of Schism , p. 47. that his interpretation of the first place , for Exclusive Provinces , ( which was his first Evidence , or rather the Ground of his future Evidences ) was so strong and unmoveable , that it alone resisted the whole world being evidently opposite to common sence , repugnant expressely to Scripture , injuriously contrary to all Antiquity , prevaricating from the translation of their own Church , and lastly contradictory to himself . The Cath. Gent. calls the interpretations wretched and blasphemous , This was our charge , let us see now his defence . First , asham'd to father his own Grounds or his own words , ( Answ : p. 38. ) he denies that he mean't these for Evidences , or ever thought on them as such . But , God be praised , his own book of Schism is extant , which ( pag. 70. ) ends the fourth parag . by professing to offer his Evidences : after which begins the fifth parag , thus , And first it is evident by Scripture that S. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision or Iews , exclusively to the Vncircumcision , &c. and no Evidences from Scripture pretented in the same parag . but these two miserable mistakes of it already noted ; from which , Repl. p. 50. l. 11. he pretends to deduce that distinction of Provinces . Next , he tells us in the same place , that it needed no Evidencing ; the thing being evident by it's own light , that the Apostles went not all to one , but disposed themselves over all the world to several Provinces . If this were his sole intent there , then why did himself professedly go about to evidence , p. 70. l. 4. what he tells us here needs no evidencing ? Or , what was his meaning to labour so hard with testimonies and Id ests , from the fifth parag to the twentieth , now by pretending irrefragable , now unquestionable Evidences , to prove that which he tells us here is evident by it's own light , and needs no other ? But indeed that was not his intent then , but to show their Iurisdictions exclusively limited , ( as shall be seen : ) though in this Book of his second thoughts , preceiving it was impossible to make good his proofs or excuse his Id ests , manifested by his Disarmer to be so impertinent ; he prevaricates from the whole question , and relinquishes● position ( which , could he have proved it , might have do●e him some service ) for another which , though granted , does him none at all . For what hurt is it to S. Peter's Headship among the Apostles , if some went one way , some another , to preach ? Thirdly , he is terribly rigorous against S. W. in telling him , in the same place , that his seventh Section is borrow●d from the Cath Gent. For ( besides that the Cath. Gent. puts onely one exception against Mr. H's wrong interpret●tion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , whereas S. W. put seven ) no honest man living who is true to his cause , and hath more regard to it's good than to an aiery flash of his own honour , will refuse to write to the same sence another hath writ before him , onely because himself was not the first Authour or Inventer of that sence ; if he sees that neither himself nor any man else could write better upon that point : which were in effect to renounce reason , because it is not originiz'd from his own invention , but proposed first by another . In this manner all Catholick writers borrow all they write from the Church ; striving to come as near her sence and Grounds as they can possibly , and not vainly hugging self-fancied Grounds of their own , as is the Protestant's mode . But this shows what kind of Spirit Dr. H. is of ; who thinks it a disgrace to write what one deems truth , if it hap to be the doctrine or sence of another : and account it his onely vain-glorious honour to be the first broacher of new explications of Scripture , and other rare inventions never before heard of Of which humour of his this present point is a pittiful instance , his book of Schism a perfect model , his Folio-Annotations on the Bible ae large Map ; as some more prudent Friends of his own complain . Fourthly , whereas he says here that my seventh Section is answered Repl. c. 4. Sect. 2. 't is a great mistake ; the greater part of my exceptions being not so much as touched there . And surely , it had been a great providence , if going about there onely to answer the Cath. Gentleman's one exception , he should have answered before-hand , by a kind of prophetical foresight , all my seven . Fifthly , ( to come to his Reply , the pretended place for answer ) he is accused for being a bad Interpreter ; and he spends the greatest part of his pains in showing himself a good Grammarian , and manifesting the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Which is a quite different thing . The same word may have twenty several notions in it self , but hath ordinarily but one of those as it is found in the Context and Syntax with other words . The significations of words are to be found in Dictionaries ; the Interpretation of them , as they stand in propositions , depends upon the antecedents , consequents , with all the other train of concomitant Circumstances : especially upon the import of the whole , and transaction of the business or thing there spoken of . Hence , the signification of the words interpreted to be sometimes down-right and proper , sometimes bow'd to a Metaphor , sometimes strain'd to a Catachresis , nay even sometimes taken absurdly and barbarously : so that , though the phrase or word seems oftentimes very odd in it self , if taken alone ; yet the circumstances and total import of the sense make that acception ( though never so improper ) altogether necessary . It being possible , even for the best Authour , to mistake , or be careless in the right use of a word ; but absolutely impossible and a Contradiction , he should not vnderstand his own meaning and intention , when he goes about to speak or write . Hence is evident how litle is likely to be ever convinc't , by Grammatical and Critical quibbling upon the dictionary signification of a word : and how litle it conduces to the interpretation of any place , more than barely to show the possibility that the word may have , in some cases , such a signification ; both the possibility , probability , and certainty that it must have it there ; being lest to the present circumstances , and the import of the whole Series of the sense . It being therefore out of question between us and granted , nay asserted and held by us , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , if taken in it self , can signify either a lot , or whatever is obtain'd by lot , whether it be Office , Province , an horse , a bag of money , or whatever else ; or whether it be by way of division or without : it is plain that Dr. H. in showing the grammatical signification of the word in it self , hath beat the aire frivolously to no purpose . Nor is his showing it to signify such a kind of lot in other places of Scripture to any better end : Both because , if the books be writ by several Authours , it may probably have one acception in one , another in another ; and perhaps a diverse one in the same : as also , because , however the word can possibly signify a Province obtained by lot , if put in due circumstances ; yet , that it can possibly have that signification here or in this place , must depend upon the present circumstances and import of that Chapter , or all that belongs to that business : which circumstances not being found in any other place of Scripture , the showing the signification of it in other places is litle or nothing to the signification it ought to have in this . It were good sport for t one , who is at leasure and hath nothing else to doe , to observe what havock this plain Rule of interpreting Scripture rightly would make with Dr. H's critical Folio-Annotations on the Bi●le . We shall onely apply it to this present place , and desire the Protestant Reader to peruse this Chapter from vers . 15. to the end , where all that belongs to this business is contained ; and see whether he can find any ground , or appearance of Ground , either precedent in the Apostles intentions , concomitant in the transaction of the business it self , or lastly subsequent in the effect of casting lots , why the thing receiv'd by that means should be a lesser province , or that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify so . Of their antecedent intent we have no other notice than this ( even according to the Protestants own transtation , ) that they mean't to make up the number of the Apostles by substituting another in the place of Iudas ) not to go to a lesser Province , but ) Act. 1. v. 22. to witness with them the resurrection : which , though all grant it was perform'd by going several ways , yet there is no such thing there exprest , to ground or infer Dr. H's following interpretation , which is all concerns us at present . Again , Act. 1. v. 17. the words , For he was numbred with us , signifie that they had reflections on the imperfectness of their number , and the following words , and had obtained part of this ministery , make it impossible that a lesser province should be there signify'd : for , Iudas had not obtain'd a lesser province in his life-time , as Dr. H. grants in many places : which is confirm'd by vers . 25. where it is said , that Iudas , by trangression , fell from his part of this ministery and Apostleship . Now , speaking properly , 't is equally impossible one should fall from a condition or state he had not before , as fall locally from a place in which he actually was not before . He had therefore ( if we speak properly and according to the express words of the 25. verse ) that thing before , from which he fell ; that is , he had actually in his life time that part of ministery and Apostleship into which S. Mathias succeeded : but Dr. H. grants , he had not actually before his death a lesser province , but the Office of Apostle onely : therefore those words can with no propriety signifie a lesser Province , but the Apostolical dignity onely ; and so it was the Apostles intention to surrogate S. Mathias onely into this dignity . Next , as for the transaction of the business it self , it was onely performed by casting lots and prayer ; no circumstances imaginable , nor the least word being there favourable to this explication , or that can be pretended to favour it : if we omit , as we ought in all reason , the phrases in controversy ; for we must not prove the same thing by it's self . To come then to the effect subsequent to the casting of lots ; nothing can be invented either plainer in it's self , or more explicative of the former intention . The words are these , the lot fell upon Mathias ; and the effect was , that he was numbred with the eleven Apostles . Relate these words to the 17. verse , For he ( Iudas ) was numbred with us ; and to the following verses , importing thus much , that Iudas fell , and , by his fall , there wanted one of the former Apostolical number : upon this they cast lots , and the result of that action is exprest to be this , that he was numbred with the eleven Apostles . Ioyn the well ordered series of these circumstances together , which the very place it self affords and offers ; and tell me good Reader , if it be likely any thing can be mean't by that into which they chose Mathias , but the dignity or office of an Apostle : tell me whether it be not a wretched interpretation ( as the Cath. Gent. call'd dit , ) onely upon a possibility that the word , taken in it's self and grammatically , or as found in other circumstances , may have such a signification ; to infer , against the whole stream of all the present circumstances , and without the least Ground or shadow of Ground from the place in which 't is found , that it signifies a lesser Province . Thus much for that place , as explicable by the right Rules of interpreting Scripture . Now then , should we condescend to criticize upon each particular word taken in it sel ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , if taken alone , signifies either the lot , or the thing obtained by lot ; and in that place it is evident and granted to be the latter : but still 't is left to be determined by other adjoyning words , what kind of thing this was which was thus obtained . The words joyned with it are these , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of this ministery and Apostleship : and by these the general signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be determined ; that is , whether it signify a province , or an office . I would ask him then , first , how often he hath read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a place of ministery , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a place where an Apostle was to preach ? Next , I would ask him , what means the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this ? which should rather , in all right , have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that ministery , &c. had it related to that province which Iudas had or should have had ; but , being as it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this ministery , what could it mean but the present office of Apostleship , which the Apostles all at that time enjoy'd , from which Iudas fell , and into which S. Mathias succeeded ? Lastly , I would gladly know of him , whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. part of this ministery or Apostleship , v. 25. do not manifestly signify the same as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , does here , v. 20 ( at least I am sure S. Peter tells us there it does ) and whether their own translation do not render this to be an office , Psal . 109. v. 8. Let another take his office ? Iudge then , indifferent Reader , what Evidences are to be expected from Dr. H. whos 's first and ground-Evidence here is thus manifoldly weak . Magnis tamen excidit ausis ; and he hath still this honour ( which he esteems most important ) that this explication is perfectly his own , and not borrow'd from any other : which poor S. W. as he disgracefully objected to him , is glad to doe , wanting ( alas ! ) Dr. H's miraculous talent of interpreting Scripture so as no man living ever did before him ; I may adde , nor any wise man will ever do after him . Sect. 3. With what weak sleights Dr. H. would underprop his ruinous explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( Iudas his place in Hell ) for a lesser Province : and how he produces Testimonies importing an evidently-disparate Interpretation for just-the-same with his . THus much for the first Ground of Dr. H's evidences , from those words , Act. 1. v. 25. That he may take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. part , or the lot , of this ministery and Apostleship . Now follows the second , and the more famous one of the two , in the same v. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from which Iudas ) as their own translation renders it ) by transgression fell , that he might goe to his own place . Which last words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or his own place , to show there were such things as exclusive provinces , Dr. H. ( of Schism , p. 71. ) paraphrases to signify , his own or proper place or assignation for the witnessing the Resurrection , and proclaiming the Faith or doctrine of Christ to the world : Others , and among them the Cath. Gent. and S. W. nay even all the Protestants ( as far as I can hear ) except Dr. H. make account it signifies Iudas his own place in Hell ; and that 't is absolutely impossible it should signify in that place a leasser province , as Dr. H. would have it . His first Argument , that it cannot signify a place in Hell , is drawn from the charitable opinion we ought to have of Iudas ; accusing the Cath. Gent. of uncharitableness for interpreting it so , in these words , ( Repl. p. 53. ) It was sufficient to say of Iudas that which had been said , v. 16. 17. 18. 19. to set out the horrour of his Fact , and his bloody death ; and that he needed not proceed to the revealing of secrets , &c. But I wonder what secret it is to say that Iudas is in Hell , after it had been revealed and pronounced by our Saviour himself ( Io. c. 17. v. 12. ) that he was the Son of Perdition , and he had died in despair by his own hands . But let us observe the order of Dr. H's charity : ( Answ . p. 22 l. 16. 17. 18. 19. &c. ) he could not retain a favorable opinion of salvation attainable by the maintainers of the breach between us ( meaning the Pope and Cardinalls , who had pronounced the Sentence of Excommunication against his Schismatical party , ) nor by the Catholick Converts in England ; nay , he had decreed and denounced Hell and damnation to S. W. and the Romish Factor , for showing he had forgotten his Accidence and his other toyish weaknesses ; yet he would not have us censure Iudas too rashly , or judge him in Hell for betraying our Saviour : The likelihood of the others damnation is of no difficulty with him ; this he calls a secret ; and blames the Cath. Gent. for revealing it . His second argument is drawn from S. Chrysostom's words upon that place , saying that S. Peter insults not over Iudas , calling him villain or detestable villain , but sets down the fact simply and his present vengeance . To which last words Dr. H. annexes his Corollary ; and to make sure work , as before he hath oft confuted us with his own surely , so now he ascertains it with his own sure : His present vengeance , that sure is it ( saith he ) which befel him in this world . A weighty argument ! as if any space of time interven'd between wicked men's death and their being in Hell ; and , as if their vengeance of damnation were not ful as present as their temporal vengeance of an ill death here . I am sure the Psalmist Psal . 55. v. 16. in that very place which uses to be apply'd to mean mystically our Saviours words of Iudas , wishes They may go quick into Hell : which expresses a vengeance present enough , and earlier than their vengeance in this world , to wish them in Hell before they are dead . In stead of a third Argument , he would persuade us in courtesy to admit a parenthesis here : his plea for this parenthesis is this , because the use of parentheses in Scripture is very obvious : If then the words ( from which Iudas by transgression fell ) be pounded up in a parenthesis , so as they may not at all help the signification of their neighbours , ( which is something too hard dealing , ) then he tells us his interpretation is clear and unavoydable . But , what means he when he tells us , that the parenthesis needs no more formall expression than onely by putting a comma after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ? would he have it a parenthesis or no ? A parenthesis relates not to the sense of the fore-going nor following words ; but leaves the sense entire though it be omitted : what is within commas onely cannot always thus be omitted , without oftentimes maiming the sense . Again , how must a comma put after Iudas needs make his interpretation so clear and unavoydable ; since he knows well that many , both Protestant and Catholick Commenters put the comma there , and yet avoyd so easily his interpretation , that they never so much as dream'd of it ? Lastly , let us remember that a parenthesis leaves the words on either side as perfectly coherent in sense , as if it had never interven'd ; and then , let us see how Dr. H. puts his doctrine in practice : To receive ( saith he ) the lot of his ministery and Apostleship ( from which Iudas by transgression fell ) to go , or that he may go to his proper place . Thus he . Where , to omit that he takes now the liberty of a formally exprest parenthesis , though , while he was begging it of us , he seem'd willing to be contented with a comma onely ; to omit this , I say , I would ask this candid man , who ( Answ . p. 18. ) so like a Saint professes his entire desire to speak the full truth of God , why he changes the words this ministery , &c. into his ministery and Apostleship ? and , if he be loath to answer , I shall do it for him , and tell the Reader he had good reasons to falsi●y it . First , because the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , This ] denotes some present thing ; and , no lesser Province being ( according to his Grounds ) at that time determin'd or present , but the office of an Apostle onely ( which he is resolved it shal not signify , ) it was therefore good reason he should change This into His. Next , the word This relates to all the words within the parenthesis , & depends upon them for it's signification ( as is evident ; ) and so destroys all his pretence to have a parenthesis there ; such a kind of reference being against it's nature . Thirdly , the following words do not hang handsomly together with the precedent , unless This be chang'd into His ; therefore 't was fitting to do it . Add that , to gain some sorry advantage , he changes the words of their own translation , that he might go , into , that he may go ; because the thing , according to Dr. H's interpretation , being to be perform'd for the future , may go can signify futurely , which might go does not , as his Antagonist Will. Lilly hath told him in his Potential mood . Such another trifling advantage he gaines ; by saying that a comma after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is already in the printed Copies : had he said , in some printed Copies , he had been more candid ; for the words , the printed Copies , import it is so in all that are printed ; which is false , it being neither so ( to omit others ) in the printed Copies of Stephanus nor Arias Montanus , held by themselves to be the best . His fourth argument is that Hell being the common place of all wicked men , it cannot fitly be exprest with such a double emphasis , as is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . I answer first , that there is no double emphasis there ; the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being nothing but a plain propositive article . Next , to come to the point ; as Son of Perdition is a name for all wicked men , yet apply'd particularly to Iudas by our Saviour , he being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in a peculiar and transcendent degree such : so , though Hell be the common place of all wicked men , yet it is tmore properly and peculiarly his ; his particular wickedness giving him a special title to it . And lastly , who doubts but that Iudas in Hell hath a proper place of his own which no other damned soul hath ? So that , as Dr. H. says here , that those words may very fitly be affirm'd of Mathias his province ; so his , as it is not any mans else : so I say , with the same reason , that those words may very fitly be affirm'd of Iudas his place in Hell ; it being so his , as it is not any mans else . Is not this an undaunted Adversary , who dares aduenture to come into the lists of disputation , armed onely with such Bull-rushes as these ? His last argument , which you must imagin his strongest , ( for art and prudence both require this order ) is this , ( Repl. 53 ) that It is not neer so proper to say , he sin'd to go to Hell ; as that the other was chosen and surrogated into Iudas his place , to go to preach to such a quarter of the world . True indeed ; for , if it be taken thus maimed and corruptedly as he hath rendered it , it is so far from proper , that it is absurd and non-sense . But , I would know of Mr. H. where he ever found it render'd he sinned to go to Hell , except onely in this present partial translation of his own . Observe , good Reader , the sincerity of this man : the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can signify , if taken in due circumstances , to sin ; but , as taken here joyned in construction with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from which , it is impossible to signify so , as every man sees ; for who ever heard such a phrase as to sin from a thing ? Now , what does Mr. H ? he leaves out the words , from which , which were necessarily conjoyn'd with the rest in construction ; and then , ( to make the phrase sound absurdly and disgracefully ) first , gives the word such and English as was impossible it should bear in that place , ( For , what sense make these words , from which Iudas sinned ? next , begins the phrase at sinned , ( which word he joyns with going to Hell , though in the parag . before he would have had them separated ) and says , it is not proper to say , he sinned to goe to Hell ; whereas 't was onely his own sly craft , which had made it improper . So sincere was his profession of his earnest desire to speak the full truth of God , that he here purposely annihilates God's word , which is his Truth , and will not let it speak out fully ; but first gagges it with a parenthesis ; next , cuts out it 's tongrue by maiming the Context : whereas , he might have seen it render'd in their own translation , from which Iudas by transgression fell , nay he render'd it so himself before , which will not let ignorance excuse him ; and he knew well enough that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies plainly departed aside , prevaricated , went aside , &c. and then the sense is no harsher than this , that he went astray from one state to go to another ; from the Apostolical office to go to Hell , or from being an Apostle , as our Saviour reprehended him , to become a Devil . After this rare defence of his blasphemous , crooked , distorted interpretation of those words , ( Repl , p. 54. ) he ends his Section , praising the said interpretation for innocent , obvious , and far from wrested : and hopes that all this amassed together will vindicate it . That is , he dares not even hope that he hath produced any one thing to stand to and build upon : yet ( as the wordish side of the Schools hold that Quantity or Divisibility may be made up of Indivisibles ; ) so he thinks an accumulation of weaknesses will make his defence strong , and a great deal of non-sense , if it be amassed together , will compound good sense . Thus far his Reply proceeds to make good his interpretation by reason . Next , in his Answer he endeavours to authorize it by Testimonies ; which he braggs of there ( p 39. ) to be just the same with the Doctor 's , meaning himself . Not to wrong Dr. H. otherwise than by showing plainly how he wrongs himself , his own credit , and his Readers eye-sight ; we will first put down his interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the very place which occasion'd this debate ; that afterwards we may show what a ●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 ●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 , a● 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 quod●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 peculiar●●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 , Protestāt , 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 cōpetent 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 ●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 cōdemnation 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 over them . Secondly , the whole tenour of the discourse there manifests that he meant exclusiveness of Iurisdiction . ▪ Exclusiveness of Jurisdiction is mentioned by him as the Ground of all his ensuing dispute ; as was shown in the foregoing parag . to which we will add his other parallel expressions : The Iurisdiction of that Metropolis belonged to Iames the Iust , and not to Peter : of Sschism , p. 73. S. Paul's independence on S. Peter : pag. 74. to wit , in Iurisdiction or power . No power can descend from S. Peter to any other , for another great part of the Christian world : p. 80. Had he ( meaning S. Peter ) any Iurisdiction over the Churches of Asia ? p. 83. No other Apostle could countermand S. Paul's instructions , no appeal left , &c. p. 83. S. Peter's baptizing in Brittany must in all reason be extended no farther than this his line , Id est , to the Iews which might at that time be disperst there , &c. p. 84. All which render it most manifest , that he meant Exclusiueness of Iurisdiction and power to preach to another line or Province ; if there were any tenour or connexion at all in his discourse , and that it rambled not forwards blindly , himself knew not how nor whither . Thirdly and lastly , not onely the whole Controversy of Schism is about the limitation or illimitation , exclusiveness or not exclusiveness , of the Pope's Iurisdiction , and the Doctor 's tenet , that this Iurisdiction is limited to such an extent , & excluded from the rest of the Christian world , so as he hath no power or command at all over them : but also his present Chapter ( 4. of Schism ) pretends to evidence this limitation of his , from the limitation of S. Peter's ; as is most visible parag . 6. of the said Chapter , and indeed in each parag . there , to the twentieth . So that , the import of his argument stands thus ; S. Peter had no Vniversal Iurisdiction , thefore his Successour the Pope can have none . This being so , who sees not that , since the thing to be infer'd is the Pope's limitation of Iurisdiction , as held by the Protestants , that is such a limitation as debats and excludes him from any lawfull power or right at all to intermeddle with more than is his imagin'd Province ; and that this inference is built upon his succeeding a limited Predecessour S. Peter : who sees not , I say , that the Antecedent must mean S. Peter's Iurisdiction was so limited to his supposed Province , that he had no Iurisdiction or power at all to meddle with a Gentile ; but that it was against right and vnlawful for him to do so ? This therefore is an evidence beyond all shuffling to avoid it , that Dr. H. in his fourth Chap. of Schism , intended to prove the Iurisdictions of the Apostles were exclusively-limited to their own Provinces ; so that they lost all power to preach to another Province : from which Dr. H. prevaricating here , and not defending his testimonies produc't there to prove it ; it follows that he acknowledges S. W. charge to be true ; ( Schism Disarm'd p. 52. ) that , among those many testimonies he produces to prove it , there is not found any one sentence , line , syllable or letter excluding S. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles ; save onely what the Doctor puts in of his own head : as he shews there in each particular allegation . This being then Dr. H's meaning , till S. W. charge of the perfect dumbness of his testimonies put second thoug●hs into his Head ; let us see how he waves his own express words and manifest intentions there : which being so perfectly visible , as hath been shown , we may be sure the prevaricating from them can cost him no less than plain self contradictions . His first self-contradiction is found Answ . p. 38. parag . 2. where he makes the point he was to prove to be no more but this , that the Apostles went not all to one , but disposed themselves over all the world , to several Provinces : By which , meaning , as he must , ( for otherwise it cannot be said to be evident by it's own light ) that one went to one place , ordinary Province , or region of the world , to preach , another to another , without any relation at all to exclusiveness of Iurisdiction ; we have quite lost the question : which was not Whether the Apostles one went one way , another another way , to preach ; but , whether S. Peter , and consequently the Pope his Successour , had an Vniversal or limited Iurisdiction , extending his power to all , or excluding it from all but his pittifull Province ; as was manifested before , by Mr. H's express words , to have been his meaning . His second self-contradiction is found in the same place ; where he sayes that what was signify'd by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( or exclusive Provinces belonging to each Apostle , which was shown plainly before to be his express meaning ) is evident by it's own light , and needs no evidencing . And yet , in his book of Schism , c. 4. parag . 4. he set himself very formally to offer his Evidences for that point ; and prosecuted his intent , from parag . 5. to the 20. to evidence it by such clouds of testimonies , ( which he calls Evidences , and some of them irrefragable and unquestionable ones ) as may very neer , if not perfectly , equal all the rest that are found in his whole book . So that , either he must cōfess he spent the most substantial part of his book to evidence that which needed no Evidencing , but was Evident by it's own light ; or else , ( which is the truth of the business ) that he hath chang'd the whole question here from what it was there : For there it was of Exclusiue Iurisdiction , and therefore very obscure , needing the pretence of many testimonies ( though dumbe ) and his own Id ests and voluntarily add●d words , to make it seem evident ; here it is onely of one Apostle going one way another going another to preach , which indeed needs no evidencing , nor was ever in question between us . His third self-contradiction is , that , notwithstanding his own express words , the scope of his whole Chapter , the tenour of his whole discourse ; and the state of the whole question manifesting he both did and could not but mean it of exclusive Iurisdiction , ( as hath been most expressely and amply shown ; ) yet he calls my acception of his words in that sense , my mistake ; Answ . p. 39. l. 34. and again , p. 41. l. 7. 8. &c. he complains that S. W. would conclude from his words , that he would have all the Apostles to have several Provinces limiting their Iurisdictions , & exclusive of one another's right ; which he calls there also a mistake and detortion . Where the Reader may see how perfectly he denies his own words of exclusive Iurisdiction , and how openly he prevaricates from all the foure formerly-mention'd pretences , shown already to have been his own ; which were the strongest ries imaginable to bind any man to hold to what he hath said , who had not forsworn all respect to truth or honesty . His fourth self-contradiction is , that , though in the place now alledged he complains of me , that I would conclude from his words that the Apostles had Provinces exclusive of one anothers right , yet his own plain words , Repl. pag. 56. l. 2. 5. most expressely grant it ; where , speaking of those Provinces proper to each Apostle , he hath these words ; So his that he hath no right to any other ; so his , as excludes him from any farther right . Is not this handsom ? His fifth self contradiction is a very neat one . According to this place alledged , S. Peter ●s Province is so his , as excludes him from any farther right ; that is , from any right to Preach to anothers Province ; yet in the same , Sect. p 57. l. 18. he grants it lawfull for S. Peter to Preach to Gentiles ; that is , to those of Pauls S. Province . Now we duller Souls imagind that right & lawfulness was all one , & that no man could lawfully doe what he had no right to doe , but Dr. H. confronts & counterposes these two identicall notions , by excluding him in one place from right to preach to another Province , & in the other place granting the lawfulness of his preaching to another Province ; which being the expresse places in which he goes about to declare his meaning in that point , manifests his tenet to be , that the Apostles might lawfully do what they had no right to do , or might lawfully do against law & right , that is might do it lawfully but could not rightfully , which settles into this elegant Contradiction , that they might lawfully doe it wrongfully . Thus self-unkind Sosia beats himself according as the change of his unconstant & phantasticall Grounds puts his mind in severall Shapes . His sixth self contradiction touches more particularly this point in hand of exclusive Provinces ; He tels us ( of Schism , p. 70. ) that Authority and Commission was given to all the Apostles indefinitely and unlimitedly , not restrained by Christs words to any parti●ular Province ; and again ( Repl. p 55. ) speaking of the particular assignations of S. Peter to the Iews & S. Paul to the Gentils , he affirms expressely , that it was not by any particular assignation of Christ's , but by agreement amongst themselves that this assignation of Provinces was made ; yet , the same Author ( of Schism p. 74. l. 4. maintains the direct contrary or rather contradictory positionto the forme , saying that S. Paul had his assignation immediately from Christ. So vtterly void of all truth is this Chimera of exclusive Provinces , that the Author of it understands not his own meaning in it , or at least forgets what he said before concerning it when he comes into new circumstances ; or rather indeed voluntarily says any thing according as it sutes best with his occasions . Hence , in the former places it fitted his turn to say that the exclusive Provinces or assignation must come from their agreement not from Christ ; because he was there to show their Commission & Authority limitted , which , as coming from Christ was held by all to be unquestionably Vniversal ; but in the last place , where he had undertaken to shew S. Paul's independence on S. Peter , it favourd more his intent to say , that he had his assignation imediately from Christ ; lest S. Paul should have any dependence at all on S. Peter , no not euen for consenting to his assignation , His seventh self-contradiction is , that building upon the words Gal. 2. 7. ( the Gospel of the Circumcision is committed to mee , as the Gospel of the uncircumcision to Peter ) for the exclusive Provinces of those two Apostles , he by consequence gets all the rest of the Apostles leave to play , since one as he saies is excluded from any right to preach to anothers Province , and there can be no more Provinces or people to Preach to than Iews & Gentiles , which are there distributed between these two Apostles : nor is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which , according to Dr. H. ( Repl. p. 55. ) signifies the Agreement which was to give them exclusive Provinces ) applied in the place alledged to any but S. Peter & S. Paul in order to the Iews & the Gentiles . This kinde favour not withstanding done to the rest of the Apostles , he afterwards spoils , by giving them Provinces too ; treating them as discourreous Schoolmasters vse to treat their Schollars ; that is , first giving them leave to play while the supplicant is present , but , he being gone & the circumstance changed , enjoyning them a task as labourious as had been their School exercise it self . When S. Peter's Vniversal Iurisdiction was to be limitted , then it went currant that the Iews were his peculiar Province , and the said place brought to evidence it . But , this once done , he bethought himself that the Power over all the Iews was too much to attribute to S. Peter , and that the Pope might hap to grow proud to succeed a person of so ample an Authoritie : wherefore finding that such and such Apostles preached in such & such a place to the Iews , he thought it best to call the Iews there their Province ; So that good S. Peter ( whom all antiquitie flatterd it seems with the title of Prince or Head of the Apostles ) hath allotted him by Christs Head-Steward Dr. H. ( of Schism , p. 71. l. 21. 22. ) no more but one portion ( or a few miserable Parishes ) of the dispersed Iews to be under his Iurisdiction But Dr. H. takes it ill ( Answ . p. 42 ) that I laugh at him for thus treating S. Peter . I Answer , the most ridiculous position that ever was made seriously by any Divine in the world ( as is this of exclusive Provinces ) is not treated as it deserves unles it be laught at . Next , he tels me that I never offer to consider the allegations by which it was made evident . I Answer , sure Dr. H. is a sleep , I considerd in Schism Disarm'd each allegation of his minutely & particularly through six whole Sections , that is from p. 42. till p. 87. & offerd to yeeld him the whole controversie , if he could shew me the least word in any one of them limiting S. Peter's Iurisdiction to any such Province ; which he dares not here accept , but denies his own words & flies from the whole question as has been shown . Thirdly , he calls my words a calumny , & complains very Soberly that I never relent at it . I Answer that I confesse my ill nature , I never relent into retractation of my tenet upon the persuasion of contradiction . Rhetorick , though oftentimes I may relent into a smile , mingled either with pitty , if I see the fault was ignorance , or else with just zeal & scorn when I see Souls traind to Hell by wilful frauds . Lastly , he asks , upon this occasion , what contradictories may not this wonder-working faculty of S. W's reconcile ? I Answer , it cannot reconcile Dr. H's contradictions here , this being a task beyond miracle , but to return to his self-contradictions . His eighth is , that whereas ( Repl. p. 57. l. 19. 20. &c. ) he would evade his own implicatory position in which he was entangled by telling us , he meant onely that S. Peter's & S. Paul's Provinces were exclusive , when they met at the same City ; himself flatly contradicts it in his Book of Schism , p. 84. where Speaking of S. Peters Baptizing & constituting Bishops in Britany , he tels us , it must in all reason be extended no farther then S. Peters line , as he was Apostle of the Circumcision , Id est ( saith hee ) to the Iews that might at that time be dispersed there . In which place he manifestly makes S. Peter's Province exclusive in Britany , where he never pretends that S. Paul met him ; though before he told us that the agreement between S. Peter & S. Paul was onely exclusive when they met at the same City , &c. How powerfull & terrible is truth which can drive her opposers to defend themselves by such miserable and weak implications ? His ninth self-contradiction quarrels with both parts of his sixth at once ; according to the former part of which S. Paul had not his Province from Christ's assignation , according to the later part of it he had it imediately from Christ's assignation ; yet maugre both these ( Repl. 58. par . 5. ) he makes S. Pauls peculiar Province Spring onely from the Iews refusing & rejecting his doctrine ; onely , I say ; for he affirms there expresly that till the Iews refused & rejected it , he does not betake himself so peculiarly to the Gentiles ; whence follows , in all likelihood , that if the Iews had not rejected Christ's doctrine , tenderd by S. Paul , that Apostle had never gone peculiarly to the Gentils , nor by consequence should have had any peculiar or exclusive Province at all . Is not this a solid man ? To omit that this experiencing of more fruit among the Gentiles then among the Iews is that which S. w. puts for the reason of his peculiar Apostleship & the Appellation of Apostle of the Gentils ensuing thereupon . These & some others are the self-contradictions with which this Adversary of mine , seing it impossible to shew one word in any testimony excluding & limiting the Iurisdiction of the Apostles , shuffles to & fro on all sides , that so what ever position he should be challenged with he may slip & avoyd it by shewing ( as he easily may ) that he said in another place the expresse contrary , and then when he hath done he preaches repentance or else Hell & damnation to his wicked Adversary for calumniating him who thus earnestly desires ( for Sooth ) to speak the full truth of God ( Answ . p. 18. ) and that so carefully , that to make sure work , for fear one part of the contradiction should not be the truth of God , he affirms both ; But I hope the Reader will be aware of his shifting weakneses , & waving all his self said affirmations , his Gentile non-sence , his pious formalities , will presse him home with this Dilemma . Either S. Peter's Authority was so limited by his pretended designation to one Province , as he had no power to preach to another , or it was not but remaind stil illimited & Vniversal , not witstanding this imagind designation ; if it remaind stil unlimited and Vniversal , how can the Pope's Authority be concluded limited from his succeeding S. Peter , if S. Peter's remaind ever unlimited ? But , if his Authority & Iurisdiction was limited , and that this was the thing to be proved by Dr. H. in his book of Schism , then why does he not vindicate his testimonies from that shamefull charge layd against them particularly by S. W. that there is not one wordin them limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions , but what himself adds of his own Head ? And why does he instead of thus vindicating them here , sometimes flatly deny the question , sometimes shuffle about to blunder a point so clear , at any rate , though it cost him no lesse then such numerous & most palpable self-contradictions , sure the knot must be great which could stand need of having wedges thus driven in point-blank oppositely on both sides to break it asunder . Sect. 5. What multitudes of absurdities and accesse of fresh self-contradictions follow out of his newly-invented tenet of Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction , then onely when the Apostles met in the same City . AFter his self-contradictions march his lesser absurdities , not so bulkie & substantiall ones as the former , yet still his , & too big to bee wielded by any man but Dr. H. nor by him neither , unles the necessity of a bad cause , incumbent on him to defend , had added to him such an increase of strength as vses to proceed from desperation . But , not to take notice of them all , I will onely take that part of his Reply which I find most pertinent to the point in hand , & then see what abondance of that kind of fruit it bears In his Reply therefore , p. 57. I find these words ; I have sufficiently exprest ( tract . of Schism c. 4. p. 7. ) how far this agreement extended , & how far exclusive it was ; not that it should be unlawful for Peter to preach to a Gentil , or for Paul to a Iew ; but h●at when they m●t at the same City ( as at Antioch certainly they did , and at Rome also I make no question ) then the one should constantly apply himself to the Iews , receive Disciples , form them into a Church , leave them to be governed by a Bishop of his assignation , and the other should doe in like manner to the Gentiles . Thus he very pithily : let us unfold & lay open what he has ( as his custome is ) involued here , & see what a heap of weaknesses lies sweating there , crowded up in so narrow a room . First , he brings these words here as an explanation of his meaning , that is , of the state of the question between us concerning how far these Provinces were exclusive : whereas in the place cited ( of Schism c. 4. par . 7. ) it is onely put as an instance of their imagin'd exclusive Iurisdictions , & introduc't with an Accordingly ; not purposely Stating or determining the measure or extent of their agreement ; nor is there any expression found there which sounds to this purpose . Secondly , this Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction , which before made such a loud sound , is now onely come to be such when they met at the same City ; & , by consequence , abstracting from that circumstance , S. Peter had Vniversal Authority : which is a great largness of his towards S. Peter , and I wonder whence this kindnes springs towards the Pope's Predecessor . Thirdly , since these two Apostles , as far as we hear , never met in any City after this pretended distribution of Provinces save onely at Rome & at Antioch , it follows that , as far as Dr. H. knows , S. Peter's Iurisdiction was universal over both Iews and Gentiles in all the world besides ; & at all other times except onely those short seasons in which they met together . Fourthly , it follows that the Pope's Authority is not limited save onely where he meets S. Paul or his Successors , ( or perhaps , as he needs will have it , S. Iohn ) and then I conceive it will be very ample . Fifthly , since he grants , that both the Congregations of Iews & Gentils were joyned in one under Pope ●lement ( of Schism , p. 79. ) that Pope by consequence succeeded them both ; & so the exclusivenes of S. Peter's Iurisdiction , when he met S. Paul , cannot possibly infer such an exclusivenes or limitation of Iurisdiction in the now Popes , or the Popes which have been since the imagind conjunction of those Congregations ▪ however h● may pretend it makes against the universal Iurisdictions of those Popes , who preceded Clemens . Thus at unawares Dr. H. grants the Pope as much as we desire , & yet very innocently thinks he impugns him ; or ( as himself expresses it Answ . p. 11. ) laies the Axe to the root and stocks up Rome's universal Pastourship . Sixthly , the question being turned into exclusivenes of Iurisdiction when they met in the same City onely ▪ it followes , there is not the least pretence of a testimony from Scripture for this position thus stated ; for 't is no where found nor pretended to be found in Scripture , that their Iurisdictions were onely to be limited , in case of meeting in the same City . So that now the pretence of evidencing from Scripture , which in the book of Schism , made a great noise , is , by this new stating the question , or rather evading it , struck quite dumb . Seventhly , it is to be observed , he has not a word in any testimony to prove their exclusive Iurisdictions in Rome & Antioch , but onely those which affirmed that they preach't , were Bishop in Rome , & founded the Church in both places : All which might easily be done by a promiscuous Authority ; nor does he offer one word of proof to underprop his weak testimonies why it could not be thus performed . Eigthly , his place , in his book of Schism , which he produces for their exclusive Iurisdictions , falls short of what he alledges it for , affirming onely , that when they met at the same City one should constantly apply himself to the Gentiles the other to the Iews . Now the prudent consideration of circumstances may determine one man to doe constantly this thing , another to doe constantly another thing , without inferring that either of them lost their right to doe the other , by this constancy of action exercised upon this one . By which faltring mistake of his own words we may see , that when he alledges them now , as a sufficient expression of his tenet of exclusivenes , he onely sought to escape from & change his former question ; and to evade , by vertue of the more moderate word [ constantly ] which standing in the confines between exclusivenes & not exclusivenes , might , at a dead litf , by the Midwifry of an Id est , or a criticism , bring forth either signification . Ninthly , the Iews ( according to Dr. H. ) being S. Peter's Province exclusively to the Gentiles , & not exclusively till they met in one City ; it follows that , unles they had met , he had no exclusive Province at all . Hence . Tenthly , since they agreed upon exclusive Provinces it follows , they agreed to meet at such & such cities , else the bargain of exclusive Provinces had been spoil'd ; yet t' is no where read , that ever they made any such agreement after this pretended distribution of Provinces . Eleventhly , put case S. Peter had come to some City two or three moneths . before S. Paul ( and we cannot imagin their correspondence so precise , nor their imployments other where so indifferent , but this might very easily & very often happen ) then it must follow , that that Apostle had universal Authority to preach to both till S. Paul come , nor can we imagin him idle or negligent to doe what good he could to all . Put case then that that Prince of the Apostles , who by one Sermon converted three thousand , should by three months labour there convert twice that number of Gentiles to Christ's faith ; to govern whom , the whole Authority over both being yet in his own hands , it is fitting he should use the said Authority in ordaining & constituting Deacons , Priests & for the orderly governing his numerous Converts ; and those too , distinct in all points from the Priests of the Gentiles ; for Dr. H. grounds interdict them all Communion . ( See Sch ▪ Dis . p. 64. ) Things thus orderd , and the Gentiles setled thus under S. Peter , S. Paul arrives at the City . Then begins the hurliburly . S. Peter's Authority , which before extended to both Nations , begins suddenly to feel the cramp & conuulsion-fits , & shrinks up to the Iews onely ; & , in all probability , a very few , perchance twenty or thirty more or lesse may be imagined to live in that City S. Peter's Iurisdiction being thus grown exclusive in respect of the Gentiles , by S. Paul's coming , consequently all the Gentiles formerly converted by him ( however addicted to their Apostle , Pastour & more then father S. Peter ) must presently change their Master , & doe Homage to S. Paul , acknowledging him their proper & now-sole-Governour . The Gentil Priests , ordained before his coming , either may be degraded lawfully by S. Paul , or else submit themselves to him , & receive the approbation of their Iurisdiction from him , as the order of Government requires . Moreover , if S. Paul had hap to be alone in the same City before , and to have converted Iews , as his custome was , then the poore Iews must avoyd S. Paul's Congregation & run to S. Peter's Church assoon as hee arrives . But , to proceed with our case , S. Paul's occasions call him away from that City , and ere he removes Dr. H. assures , that he must leave behind him a Bishop of his assignation , that is , over the Gentiles ; then presently we must imagin , that S. Peter's Iurisdiction , which had felt a kind of Winter-Season during S. Paul's residence there , hee departing , begins to feel a happy Spring , budding now & Sprouting out a fresh towards the Gentiles . So that now the Scene of Iurisdiction & Government is quite changed again , according to Dr. H's grounds ; and , were not S. Peter a good man , he might undo all that S. Paul had done , & be revenged on him for coming to the same City where he was to limit his Authority . The Gentiles therefore which were converted before by S. Peter , assoon as S. Paul is out of sight , begin to face about again , & S. Peter recovers his own . To work therefore heegoes , and fals to preach Christ's faith to the Gentiles the second time , which before he durst not ; Converts many , & having by this time got power enough to do it , being about to depart leaves a Bishop of his own constituting to govern them ; So that we have now got two Gentil Bishops in the same City ; and , if Dr. H. say there was not , he must say we are beholding to the Apostles prudence & goodnes for it , not to his grounds of illimited Iurisdiction when they met not , & limited , when they met in the same City , which infers they had Authority to do this & many other absurdities , and by consequence his position in it self destroyes all order both of Authority & Government . Again , when they met at the same City , in case a Gentile had come to S. Peter & desired to hear Christ's doctrine , S. Peter must refuse to teach him it , & send him to S. Paul ; telling him it was beyond his power , because S. Paul & he had exclusive Iurisdictions when they met at the same City ; or else desiring him to stay till S. Paul was gone away , or else to watch some handsome opportunity when S Paul should go to the next Town , & then he would doe him the favour . And the like must wee imagin in case a Iew went to S. Paul Lastly when those two Apostles preach't Christ's faith publikely ( as their custome was ) then , in case S. Peter had spy'd some Gentiles or S. Paul some Iews coming to their Sermon , presently ( as if some excommunicated person had come in presence ) all must be supposed to be hush't , & the Sermon quasht ; else we must imagin that that Apostle civilly makes a parenthesis in his discourse , desiring them to withdraw & retire to the others Congregation , confessing candidly that now that his counter-Apostle meets him in the same city , his Iurisdiction is exclusive , & that he has no power at all to give them any notice of Christ & his Law , but must be forced to exclude them from his Congregation . Canst thou refrain smiling , Reader , at such a heap of comical absurdities . But , to return to the place in his Reply , the source of all these gallant consequences , & to bundle up together the other absurdities in it , which to treat diffusedly were a wearisome & ingrateful task ; what meanes , his saying here it is not unlawful to preach to anothers Province , & yet saying ( Repl. p. 56. l. 2. ) he had no right to doe it what means his putting here , the meeting in one City to give an exclusive and peculiar Province to S. Paul , whereas he had before ( according as it serv'd his turn best ) made it come from three other severall causes and some of them contradictories ; to wit , imediately from Christ's assignation ; not from Christ , but from agreement among themselves ; and lastly , onely from the Iews rejecting & refusing him , as hath been shown from his own words before in his sixth & ninth self contradictions ? what means his putting here S. Peter's exclusivenes of Iurisdiction to arise from the same circumstance of meeting S. Paul in the same City , & yet ( of Schism , p. 84. ) excluding S. Peter from medling with Gentiles in Britany , into which countrye he pretends not to shew S. Paul came , much lesse met him there in the same City ? what means his stating here S. Peter's Iurisdiction not exclusive , that is illimited till he meets S. Paul , and yet ( of Schism p. 71. l. 21. 24. ) stating the same Iurisdiction exclusive to all but one portion onely of the dispersed Iews , without reference at all to S. Paul's meeting or not meeting him , but to the division of places & Provinces onely . Lastly , what mean't he to talk of evidencing his then tenet from Scripture , & yet the exclusivenes of Iurisdiction onely when they met in the same City , not so much as pretended to be shown from Scripture . These man fest & manifold self-contradictions & heaps of absurdities , shown from Mr. H's own words , will let every rationall man see & make every sincere man acknowledge , that he cares not a pin what he saies , nor what non-sence he deludes his Reader with provided he delude him civilly , courteously & gentilely ; nor what contradictions he maintains , so he can but imbosk himself handsomely in them , & hide his head from being discovered . Yet he tells us ( Rep. p. 56. ) he doubts not to reconcile all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here , at least that one who hath a greater 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , may do it ; and so , fully satisfies his Reader , if he will be content with pedantry in Greek , instead of plain sence & truth in honest English. Sect. 6. The Question concerning his imagin'd Exclusive Provinces stated and cleared . A plain Explication of the place , Gal. 2. upon which hee grounds them . HAving thus layd open how Dr. H. shuffles about to avoyd the effects of his own position ; we will proceed to examin the point it self , and lastly Answer his testimonies alledged to conclude these exclusive Provinces . Concerning the point it self four positions are to be considerd , which may be imagind to concern it ; first , that the Apostles went not all one way to preach ▪ but one or more one way , others another . The second , that all the Apostles made a positive agreement to goe one or more to such or a Province . The third is , that they so agreed to goe to such & such Provinces , at their present parting as they agreed never to go to any other for the future . The fourth is that their Iurisdiction was included within such a Province , and excluded from all other imagind Provinces . The first is evident & confest , but nothing at all to our question which is concerning limitation or illimitation of Iurisdiction ; And who sees not how shallow this inference is ; the Apostles went some one way , some another to preach , therefore S. Peter is not Prince of the Apostles , or Head of God's Church ; Or thus , the Apostles , who confessedly had their Iurisdictions Vniversall from Christ , thought it more discreet & fitting to goe some one way , some another , therefore their Iurisdictions become limited ; which is as much as to say , that when Christ gave to each Vniversall Iurisdiction , & sent them to teach all Nations , he mean't they should all goe one way , for otherwise ( according to this manner of arguing ) had he meant they should goe severall wayes , it could not consist with that present intention of his to give them at that very time universal Iurisdiction . The second , to wit that they all made a part or positive agreement to goe determinate severall wayes , or to such particular places , is very obscure , & rather related as a thing imagind or opinionated to have been , then asserted and manifested by any authentick proof . Nor does it at all touch our question , which is about Iurisdiction , vnles it can be proved that they made a part of exclusive o● limited Iurisdiction ; Of which nature not the least word o● proof has hitherto been produced , not will ever be producible for the future . The third , to wit , that they made a positive pact for each one or more to go to such determinate places & no other , is yet obscurer & lesse authentick then the former , no exact Itinerary of their travells being extant , much lesse of their non-plus vltra's by pact & agreement , but all the whole busines is left to blind and inconsequent conjectures , according as they were found or obseru'd to haue preach't in one Country , and not obseru'd to have done so in another , but whether persecution , a mutuall war , or conveniency of circumstances dispersed them thus , nothing is or can be concluded hence . Nor , were it all granted , can any inference be grounded upon this , prejudicing our tenet , or even touching our question , which is concerning Iurisdiction ; since prudent consideration of circumstances might be of force to determin the Apostles to agree that such & such should stay constantly in this Province , and nor preach actually in another , without any necessity of their agreeing to limit their universal Iurisdiction given by Christ ; and so it cannot bear 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 ●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 , be●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 Apostl●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 ●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 of fellowsh●p , the agreement that was made betwixt them , &c. is sure the interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; which if it be so , to wit , that their entrusting exprest antecedently have the same sence as their subsequent agreement , then I wonder what is become of his farther designation , since one is but the interpretation of the other , that is hath the same sence with the other . Sect. 7 ▪ The Examination of five Testimonies brought in recruit for his exclusive Provinces ; of which the first is expressely against himself ; the next three , even in his own grounds , impertinent to our Question ; and the first borrowed from the Arch heretick Pelagius , and falsify'd to boot . AT present we have no more to do , but to Answer his lately gleand testimonies , huddled together confusedly in his Answ . p. 39. 40. And though , when reason is to manage the busines , we are to expect nothing but contradictions from this Dr. as himself has amply inform'd us ; yet , being now got into his own element of comon-place-book testimony-parcels , we must imagin his art is at it's vertical heighth . The first is from S. Ambrose on Gal. 2. 8. which I shall transcribe as I finde it cited by him ; Pétrum solum nominat ac sibi comparat , quia Primatum ipse acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam , se quoque pari modo electum ut Primatum habeat in fundandis Gentium Ecclesiis . He names Peter alone & compares him to himself , because he had received the Primacie to found the Church , and he likewise is chosen to have the Primacie of founding the Churches of the Gentiles : where , first , if Primatus signifies Primacy of Iurisdiction ( and unles it signifies so 't is nothing to our question , which is about Iurisdiction onely ) then it is not possible to imagin a testimony more expresly for our tenet of S. Peter's universal Iurisdiction and greater then S. Paul's , than this which he alledges against it ; saying that S. Peter had the Primacy to found the Church , without any limitation at all mentioned confining him to this or that Church ; So that , if there be any exclusivenes or shadow of exclusivenes found in that place as I see none ) then it ought in all reason be the exclusivenes of S. Paul from the Iews , since he is particulariz'd by it to the Gentiles ; and not of S. Peter from any , who is not particulariz'd here at all to any part or portion of the Church , but extended to all , unles D. H. will say , that the word [ Ecclesia , Church ] signifies a peece of the Church onely . This testimony therefore might serue to some purpose , were it brought to prove that S. Peter's Iurisdiction was Vniversal , & S. Paul's limited , but to prove S. Peter's limited from words that extend it to the Church , without any note of limitation at all found there , is still Dr. H's old & bold trick , of gulling the Reader to his face , with out either shame or conscience . Secondly , the comparison between those two Apostles and the ( pari modo electus ) if we will stand to the words in the testimony , make this sence as apply'd to particulars ; that , as S. Paul was particularly chosen to found the Gentiles Church , so S. Peter was in like manner particularly chosen to found the whole Church , which signifies that S. Peter was universal Pastor , and S. Paul vnder him : which is kindly done of Mr. H. and deserves great thanks from us . Though I wonder the sincere Reader can without just resentment suffer himself to be so tamely deluded , as D. H. endeavors here , by making him beleeve that testimony of S. Peter's Primacy to build the Church , signifies that he was onely over the Iews ; and that not all these neither , but onely over one portion of them in dispersion ; nor yet that these were his exclusive or peculiar Province , unless S. Paul chanced to meet him in the same City . Thus perfectly careless is he whether the place hee alledges be indifferent , for him or against him ( as hath been shown all over in Schism Disarm'd ) so he can dazle a vulgar headed reader's eyes with the glorious pretence of a father's or councill's testimony and make way to introduce it by some voluntary and boldly-promising preamble of his own as he does at present ; assuring us here ( Answ . p. 39. l. 35. ) that these words of S. Ambrose are plain ; but , whether plain for him , or plainly against him it matters not with him ; and that in them S. Ambr. asserts all that was either his purpose or interest to affirm : as if it were either Dr. H's intent or his advantage to conclude S. Peter over the Church without any limitation put down , that is , over the whole Church , and S. Paul over the Gentiles onely , and so vnder him . The second testimony is from S. Chrysostom , saying that S. Paul demonstrates himself to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : and compares himself with Peter the chief of them . Thus hee . In Answer . First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies any kind of extrinsecall honor , whether it springs from better parts , greater efficacy , more industry in preaching , or from what so ever cause and not onely from dignity of Iurisdiction , it follows likewise that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in it's self as indifferently appliable by circumstances to signify an equality in any of the former respects , as it is to signify an equality in the latter of Iurisdiction ; and the like may be said of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , since of it self it onely signifies that S. Paul compared himself to S. Peter ; but , in which of the former regards this comparison was made , the generall signification of the word leaves indifferent and to be deermined by circumstances . Secondly the best circumstance to judge what this word should signify in that place is the subjecta materia or place it self , of which this is the explication ; which being Gal. 2 8. where there is nothing at all relating to Iurisdiction but to efficatiousness in preaching to Iews and Gentiles , of this therefore the comparison between these two Apostles must be understood ; in this respect onely must they necessarily be signified by these words to have been equally-dignified , and not in Iurisdiction or governing power which is not there spoken of . Thirdly , that this is the meaning of it is clearly shown by the following Testimony ( which is his third ) out of Theophylact , who for the most part transcribes out of and follows S. Chrysostom ; 'T is this , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he shows himself equall 〈◊〉 Peter : which words D. H. cites , but leaves out the words imediately following , lest they should quite spoil his pretence of proving out equality of power from the other . The following words are these ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : So that the testimony taken entirely is this , he shows himself equally honored with Peter , for he who had given to Peter efficacy of preaching to the Iews gave mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same towards the Gentiles . Where nothing is or can be more evident then this , that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there spoken of was the self same as was exprest by the ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) the self-same efficacy of preaching , which nothing concerns equality or superiority of power or command in order to Government , as plain sence tells every man , and Dr. H. himself grants Answ . p. 51. l. 26. The fourth testimony or rather the second part of the first is still from S. Amb. which , ) as the Caspian sea runnes under ground a long way and then rises up again in the Euxine ) sculks under a parenthesis in which the two late Testimonies are found , and shows it's Head again at the end of it in this form . Ita tamen vt & Petrus praedicaret Gentibus si causa fuisset & Paulus Iudaeis nam vterque invenitur vtrumque fecisse ; sed tamen plena authoritas Petro in Iudaismi praedicatione data agnoscitur & Pauli perfecta authoritas in praedicatione gentium invenitur , yet so that Peter might preach to the Gentiles also if there were cause , and Paul to the Iews ; for both of them is found to have done both : but yet the full Authority is acknowledged given to Peter in the preaching to the Iews and Paul's perfect Authority is found in preaching to the Gentiles . Where , the first part of the testimony is expressely contrary to Dr. H. this granting that each might preach to either , he denying they had right to doe so , Repl. p. 56. and that S. Peter had no Iurisdiction save over one portion onely of the dispersed Iews ( of Schism p. 71. ) The second part of it which concerns plena authoritas , full Authority or power , is onely meant of greater powerfulness and authoritative efficacity in preaching , not of fuller power of Iurisdiction . No● can it be otherwise , either proceeding upon grounds common to us both , these words being the explication or comment upon the greater efficacity of preaching spoken of in the 8. v. and so are to be understood to mean that said efficacy , which none imagins to signify Iurisdiction ; and particularly upon Dr. H's grounds which makes no designation of Provinces till the agreement exprest as he will needs have it in the 9. v. by their giving the right hands of fellowship ; to which this speciall efficacity of preaching , mention'd in the , 8. v. and it 's exposition are antecedent . Again suppose it signified full power of Iurisdiction yet there wants ( when they met in the same City onely ) to make it expresse for Mr. H's tenet ; So that neither can it concern our question of Iurisdiction ; nor , did it , could it reach home to Dr. H's purpose . Lastly , to render this place impossible to serve Dr. H's turn , let us look Answ . p. 51. l. 26. and we shall find him expressely contend that preaching or converting is nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction and therefore not argumentatiue for us to infer S. Peter's larger Iurisdiction from his preaching to more : Now then , since the Authority here spoken of is onely in praedicatione , in preaching ( as the testimony it self inform us ) consequently it can neither concern our question which is about Iurisdiction , nor make for his purpose , and all this follows out of his own words and his own grounds . The fifth Testimony is from S. Hierom ( as hee tells us ) that the Churches of the Iews seorsim habebantur nec his quae erant ex gentibus miscebantur , were held a part nor mingled with these of the Gentiles , and that the agreement was made that S. Paul should preach to the Gentiles , Peter Iames and Iohn to the Iews . The latter part of this testimony is already answered and shown that this was a prudent consent to act in such sort as God's speciall concurrence had manifested to be best in those circumstances . To act , I say , not to make a formall and perpetuall pact the one Province should be ( as Dr. H. expresses it ( Repl. p. 56. l. 2. 5. ) so one Apostles that he hath no right to another part but is excluded from any farther right ; which includes two things besides some to go one way and some another ; to wit perpetu●ty of such a right , and exclusivenes ; neither of which are any where exprest in this testimony . As for the first part of this place concerning the severing of the Iewish and Gentile Churches . First I Answer , that I doubt not but the Apostles did prudently let them vse their devotions a part as long as the Iewish customes were in fresh observation , and therefore the conjuction of them in common Acts of devotion would have been subject to breed offence and scandalls ; but , I deny absolutely that which can serve Dr. H's turn , to wit , that they ●sed their endeavours to keep them still a part for the future , which they had done had they constituted distinct Bishops over them to govern them as contradistinct Provinces ; for , this would have made the breach which was onely occasionall at first and so easily by degrees alterable , passe into ecclesiasticall Constitution , not easily violable , by this means keeping on foot the division : and also this carriage of the Apostles would have countenanced the breach and the groundless scandall which occasion'd the breach . All therefore the Apostles did was no more then as if Magistrates who govern in common a City , if the Citizens chance to fall at variance , some prudently comply with one side , others with the other to reduce both to unity ad amity which is far from making two litle commōwealths of them or assigning them distinct Magistrates to govern them : which had they done who sees not but by taking a way the Vnity of Government they had establisht the division . Such was evidently the Apostles demeanour here , such their intentions ; to wit , as much as they could without scandalizing either party , to bring them to Vnity and Vniformity into one Church and to Vnite them in him whom they taught to be the head corner-stone , Christ Iesus , in whom was no distinction of Iew and Gentile : And surely had the distraction in the Primitive Church been thus cōtinued by Apostolicall agreemēt to sever them as distinct Provinces and constitute over them opposite-litled Bishops we should both have heard news of ●ome of those Bishops exprest by some testimony from antiquity to have been over Iews onely or Gentiles onely ; and also have heard of their reuniting after wards under one common Bishop , and how the former Bishops , either one or both , were dispossest or lost their place . Yet not a syllable could Dr. Hammond find to expresse the former save his own , Id est , nor to countenance the latter but his own new invented Scholion , or ( as he calls it of Schism p 79. his clew , ) to extricate the Reader out of the mazes into which antient writers may lead him ; as hath been shown particularly in Schism Disarm'd . Part. 1. Sect. 10. 11. 12. Secondly , to return to our Testimony Dr. H. prettily ioyns these two places together thus , S. Hierom having affirmed on Gal. 1. 22. that the Iewish and Gentile Churches were severd , addes ( saith hee ) on this verse of c. 2. that they agreed that S. Paul should preach to the Gentiles , &c. and thence having found the word severing in the first place , he infers a severing of Provinces , and introduces it with a sure . What means ( having affirmed in his comment on the first Ch. he addes in his comment on the second , ) as if the second place following soe far of and spoken in a nother occasion had been an addition to the first ; all his following book is added to any line of it if this be adding . But this is another Gentile gullery of the Reader to his face to make him conceit by ( having affirmed he addes ) that the severing of Churches exprest in the first place relates to their agreement found in the latter , which would have made some shew of a proof . But , alas , how far are these two from being added together or conjoyned ? This pretended agreement among the Apostles to which the second part of the Testimony relates , hapning fourteen yeares after what was recounted in the first Chapter v. 22 on which the first part of the testimony comments , as is clearly seen in the first verse of the 2. Chapter . After fourteen years , &c. Soe that the meaning of Dr. H's ( having affirmed he addes ) comes to this , that , having affirmed one thing in one place he addes another thing in another , which happend fourteen years after , and indeed much longer the scandall between the Iews and the Gentiles having been much ancienter , and ever since the beginning of the preaching of the saith to both . Thus Dr. H. civily abuses his Reader ; and , as long as he does it civily , S. W. must not be angry with him or if he does he must not hope to goe to heaven as Dr. H. hath told him from Scripture , p. 3. What is said hitherto is pretty but yet Dr. H. vses to be kinder when he alledges testimonies and either brings such as are expressely against him , as he did lately from S. Ambrose , and in many other places ; or else contradicts himself ; let us examin this a while and we shall see , hee continues his former favours to us . I slall suppose with Dr. H. that he produced the former testimony of severing the said Churches to prove those severall Provinces both because I find the word ( sever ) which he vses in his inference no where but in that place onely ; as also , because if it were not produced for that end , I know not what it serves for at all . Again , I shall suppose with him that these imagin'd lesser Provinces of Iews and Gentiles were assign'd by Apostolicall agreement , not by Christ ; as he amply declares himself of Schism p. 70. And that this agreement was that which is exprest Gal. 2. v. 8. 9. &c. as he expresses himself in many other places of the two Provinces of Iews and Gentiles . Now then this place of S. Hierom's being ( as he sayes ) upon Gal. 1. 22. which concerns matters done fourteen years before this agreement , ( as the beginning of the second Chap. manifests ) the result is that these severall lesser Provinces , as deducible from this testimony , were fourteen years before they were . But this is a contemptible contradiction in Mr. H. who aimes at higher matters . So much for the upshot of Dr. H. ( having affirmed , he addes ) which signifies thus much that S. Hierom. having affirmed one thing in one place , and on an occasion happening at such a season , he addes a quite disparate thing in another place a mile of , and an occasion relating to another time fourteen years after , which Dr. H. preposterously adds or ioyns together , and then layes the blame on S. Hierom. Thus much to shew how impertinent this testimony had been , in case it were S. Hierom's ; but now , if it be none of that fathers but another author's , and he two an heretick , nay in all probability the Arch heretick Pelag●us , and this confest by all sides both Catholicks and Protestants , and moreover most unlikely to be unknown to Dr. H. what characters shall wee think such a writer deserves who characters himself so earnestly to desire to speak the full truth of God ( Answ . p. 18. ) and yet quotes the most pestilent hereticks for the most Orthodox fathers , and would have his Readers rely for their salvation upon their rotten Authority ; which is in a manner to stand to the devill 's courtesy whether he will have their Souls or no. It is an ordinary thing to print in the volumes of the fathers all Treatises which have hapt to be entitled theirs , let them be genuine or spurious . To discern them or take cognizance which are sophisticated , which not , belongs particularly to learned men who read the fathers for their own or others profit , lest they rely on themselves or vent to others the poison of heresy and error-tainted opinions in stead of Orthodox faith ; nay indeed this , for the reason given , ought to be their first task ; but most necessarily and specially theirs who undertake to write and print controversies of religion ; the main universall importance of the employmēt engaging them to look with the perfectest care how they play their game when Souls ly at stake . If the thing then be obvious , the diligence of such an author is hugely concerned to look upon what grounds he proceeds ; but , if he bee also much read in books of this nature , his candor and conscience are bound by the highest engagements God himself could impose to acknowledge either absolutely or at least dubiously that such a book is a known hereticks not a Catholicks ▪ That Dr. H. had so litle insight into fathers as not to know this , I cannot in his behalf suspect ; I doubt not bu● he is industrious and laborious enough , and takes as much pains in reading to as litle purpose as most men living ; and I wish his indirect dealings in other places would let my charity consist with truth to think him innocent of the latter and greater fault . However , I will not judge him my self , but I suppose his friends , who have a great opinion of his generall reading , will think it not candidly done after they consider this which follows . Two commentaries on the Galatians are intitled S. Hierom's the one larger and acknowledged by both sides , the other briefer and acknowledged by neither ; nor is it possible that any man , who had run over the titles of the Treatises which goe under S. Hierom's name , should be ignorant that two such commentaries there were ; and so , had he meant honestly in citing a place out of one of them , he would have told us in which it was found , whether in the larger or in the briefer . To put down then a Testimony and cite onely Hier. in Gal. 1. 21. without telling us in which commentaries on the Gal. it was found ( when as Dr. H's much reading will not permit us to think he was ignorant there was two ) joind with this observation that the testimony was not found in the larger one , but in the lesser ; not in the genuine , but in those which are acknowledg'ly spurious , consequently this sleight half citing it savours very strong of a wilfully-affected insincerity . Now the exceptions of our Dr. against these briefer commentaries as also all those shorter ones upon S. Paul's Epistles , are these , that it is manifestly shown from S Augustin that they were writ by the Arch heretick Pelagius . For that father in his third book de peccatorum meritis & remissione c. 1. sayes that he had read the short commentaries of Pelagius upon all the Epistles of Paul ; and in the same book c. 12. he cites some things out of the 7. c. of the. 1. Cor. which are found in them . Our Doctors also gather manifestly Pelagian opinions and positions out of the same commentaries upon Rom. c. 5. 6. 7. 8. and. 11. Vpon . 1. Cor. 4. Phil. 1. and 3. Vpon Tim. c. 6. Nor have the Protestants a better opinion of them their own much approved Rivetus in his book Criti●i sacri printed at Geneva p. 374. affirms that both the difference of the stile and the opinions of them shew them to be none of S. Hierom. that Ambrosius Catharinus thinks that Pe●agius writ them , because upon the sixth and ninth ad Rom. he teaches that eternall predestination is from the merits of the elect foreseen by the divine foreknowledge ; that Senensis doubts not but the author of them was sick of the Pelagian pestilence because upon the 7. c. ad Rom. he calls it a madnesse to think that originall sinne was derived from Adam . After this he quotes Victorius and Bellarmine , and sayes that the latter of them proves them out of S. Augustin to be writ by the Arch-heretick Pelagius , Thus far their own Rivetus . And now , I beseech thee Protestant Reader , be true to thy self , and thine own Soul , and see what sincere Drs thou reliest on , who though when they speak freely and are not put to it in dispute they grant that these commentaries are an Arch-hereticks ; yet , when they are put to it to maintain their paradoxicall faith , make S. Hierom an Arch-heretick , or else the Arch-heretik Pelagius his doctrine S. Hierom and Orthodox , by making those books his , so they can but glean any sorry scrap of a testimony thence to lend a dim colour to their cause , and to countenance it by a sophisticate and counterfeit Authority ; nay , onely half-cite the place , to cloak the insincerity of which their own hearts are conscious ; and lastly , which is most worth noting this very testimony so miserably authorised is soe mainely rely'd on , that he can never make the ends of his discourse meet without the help of this , every foot , nor even pretend to show one word in any testimony for his tenet but by making this one of the three testimonies which must peece up that one word , as shall be seen hereafter . Thus much to shew how weak this Testimony is in it self had it been true , and how the Dr. falsifies it's Authority to gain it an undue credit ; but this is not all , the falsifying the Authority of this Testimony could not serve his turn , but he must falsify the words two , pretending that S. Hierom added upon , Gal. c. 2. v 8. that the agreement was made that S. Paul should preach to the Gentiles and Peter Iames and Iohn to the Iews whereas there is noe newes of any agreement exprest in that place ; for upon the words [ dextras dederunt , they gave us their right hands ] in which phrase Dr. H. places the agreement there is noe comment at all found save onely this , ita nos docere debere , that Paul and Barnabas should teach thus and thus ; and upon the following words , relating to Paul and Barnabas nothing but onely this , ambo enim missi erant simul vt gentibus praedicarent for they were both sent together that they might preach to the Gentiles . But whether this sending sprung from an agreement among the Apostles or from the sole designation of God Almighty , exprest both by his speciall cooperation with them , as also by those words , separate for me Paul and Barnabas , &c. the testimony alledged sayes nothing . Now Dr. H. building mainly upon this agreement and expresly citing this place for it where noe agreement at all is found , 't is most manifest that he hath falsified the words of the testimony aswell as it's Authority . Sect. 8. Two other Testimonies for the same point scan'd : the first abus'd , and yet still impertinent to his purpose ; the second , a most egregious and notorious falsification . S ▪ Hierom's mind in this point of Exclusive Provinces . THe sixth Testimony is from Theophylact on Gal. 1. 22. recited by Dr H. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Being come to Iudea he departed thence , both because he was sent a preacher to the Gentiles , and because he would not build on another's foundation . In Answer : does hee say , hee could not build on another's foundation , or , as Dr. H. expresses it Reply p. 56. had not right to doe it ? if not , what are these words to us , who do not desire that S. Paul should do imprudently , as it had been if leaving the Gentiles , where himself had begun to preach with experience of so much fruit , he should apply himself to preach in Iudea , where S. Peter had experienc't the like fruit ; which was , in other language , to leave a place where his preaching was most needfull and most particularly fruit full , and stay in another where his preaching was needles and not so particularly fruitfull . Is this any thing at all to our question of limited or unlimited Iurisdiction . Secondly , the words , because he was sent a preacher to the Gentiles , are meant of Christ's Mission ( as shall presently be demonstrated ) acknowledged by Dr. H. ( of Schism , p. 70. ) to have been unlimitedly and indefinitely given to all the Apostles not restrained by Christ's words to any particular Province , and in particular speaking of S. Paul's Province , Repl. p. 55. l. 31. Soe that the bringing this proof for lesser Provinces , is perfectly frivolous and self-contradictory . Thirdly , this testimony is upon , Gal. 1. 21. and speakes of his coming to Judea to see Peter , which was more then fourteen years before his next coming thither , Gal. 2. when this distribution of those lesser Provinces by agreement are pretended to bee made . This is seen most evidently from the direct tenour of those places counting exactly the years ; I went to Hierusalem to see Peter , Gal. 1. 18. After , I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia . Gal. 1. 21. After which imediately follows , Then after fourteen years I went up again to Hierusalem with Barnabas , &c. at which time the pretended agreement was made and the right hands of fellowship given , ( as is to be seene in the following verses ) upon which he builds the assignation of those fancied Provinces , ( of Schism , p. 73. Answ p. 41. l. 5. Repl. p. 56. l 14. and p. 57. l. 4. &c. and in many other places soe that we see this second going up to Hierusalem , when the Provinces are imagin'd to be given , was fourteen years after his being in Iudea mention'd in the Testimony , besides the time S. Paul was in Syria and Cilicia . This distance of time is unquestionnably the outward show of the letter ; but , howsoever it may be interpreted , this is most certain and without all controversy that it was afterwards . These things being so , what a shame then is it to bring a testimony , relating to things done long before , to prove his conceit of lesser Provinces held by himself to have been assigned long after . But is this all the shame ? let us see . The testimony is put down by him in indifferent termes , being come to Iudea he departed thence , &c. without any distinction when this coming was whether before , at , or after the pretended agreement ; whereas had it been known that it was at his coming onely to see Peter , which hapened before that agreement , whence he deduces these lesser Provinces of S. Peter and S. Paul , it had been manifestly discouer'd to be perfectly useles to prove that there were such lesser Provinces at all . These words therefore hewarily leaves out least they should quite disgrace the rest . The testimony entirely recited is this , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. coming to Iudea onely to see Peter ; which former words being so few , so link't in context with the other words , and soe totally disadvantaging his pretence of lesser Provinces deducible hence ( they being future , even in his own grounds , in respect of this time he came to see Peter ) I shall take leave to think there was design and Artifice in omitting them and producing the testimonie soe advantageously imperfect , though I hazard another excommunication in Greek from the crafty alledger and abuser of it . From his Answer let us go to his Reply , p. 55. where we shall find him from falsifying in iest , fall to do it in earnest ; and that , soe openly and manifestly as is impossible either to be cloak't , with evading glosses or excused by ignorance or mistake . I commend therefore the examination of it to Dr. H's friends more particularly ; even submitting my self to their censure if he be found excusable . To put all clearer I will fully transcribe from the place alledged . His seventh testimony ; where after he had told us that Paul and Barnabas had a Province entrusted to them by giving the right hands of fellowship which he calls their agreement to do so , he undertakes to prove it beginning his fourth parag . thus . And this is the speciall importance , ( saith S. Chrysostome ) of the [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but contrariwise ] the beginning of v. 7. as that is apposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their adding to him , v. the 6. Iames saith he , and Peter and Iohn were so far from opposing any thing that he had done , from advising any thing more , from telling him any circumstance more then before he knew , that they not onely approved but commended what he had done , and , to set things the more unquestionably for the future , made this agreement with him and Barnabas that whensover they should come to the same City mixt of Iews and Gentiles Peter and Iohn should betake themselves to the Iewish , and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile part of it . And here I find the first full stop , all the rest being commas , which followd the , [ saith hee ] to wit , S. Chrysostom's by which 't is evident that no well-meaning Reader , who took not upon him to sift this wily Author , could suspect but that all the words following that [ saith hee ] went upon S. Chrysostom's account , and were alledged as his . This once premised , we will set down S. Chrysostom's testimony in his own words ; and that every reader may understand it , introduce it with a short glance at the occasion of them out of Scripture . S. Paul , compelled by some calumnies against his doctrine , went up to Hierusalem to communicate the gospell he preached to them who were of reputation , Peter , Iames , and Iohn , who as hee affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in conference added nothing to him , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but contrariwise , finding his doctrine entire and perfect , and moved by seeing the grace that was given him , gave to him the right hands of fellowship ; acknowledging , by this acceptation of him for their fellow Apostle , that his doctrine was sound Now S. Chrysostom's comment upon that place which is the testimony related to by Dr. H. is this . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : what means , [ but contrariwise ] some affirm S. Paul sayes that they not onely not taught him , but were taughtly him ; but I should not say so , save onely that they blamed him not , but were so far from blaming him , that they also praised him ; for praising is contrary to blaming ; and so proceeds in expressing their commendation and approbation of his doctrine throughout this whole place alledged . Here , reader , thou seest what S. Chrysostom makes the spec all importance of the [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but contrariwise ] to bee ; to wit that they praised him , praising being contrary to blaming . Hence appears the first wilfull falsification of Dr. H. who having spoken of S , Paul's having a Province entrusted to him by Apostolicall agreement , imediately subjoyns . And this is the speciall importance , saith S. Chrysostom . [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but contrariwise ] as if the commending S. Paul's doctrine , in which onely S. Chrysostome puts the antithesis and opposition to the blaming it , did not onely import but specially , import the intrusting him with a lesser Province whereas all the speciall importance of it is onely this that Dr. H. hath a speciall faculty of his own in falsifiing , and making speciall fools his credulous Readers to think all his forgeries gospell because he gives them speciall fine words , and assures them he hath a speciall desire to speake the full truth of God. Yet a simple falsification is too weak to defend Dr. H's cause wherefore , to make sure work , he twists them into a compound forgery . In his book of Schism he endeavor's to prove that these Apostles had severall Provinces at Rome and Antioch ; his Disarmer show'd to the eye of the Reader that he had not one word expressing that position in any testimony alledged but what he added with an , Id est , of his own head : It is expected therefore that he should at least produce new ones which were expresse in his Reply and Answ . and , that we may see how strongly warranted his Tenet is , he brings here one so home and expresse that I confesse some difficulty to Answer it ; I mean the latter part of the long testimony lately recited as from S. Chrysostome ; and to set the things the more unquestionably for the future , they made this agreem●nt with Paul and Barnabas , that , when soever they should come to the same City mixt of Iews and Gentiles , Peter and Iohn should betake them selfs to the Iewish and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile part of it . This is expressely now and full for Dr. H's tenet , not a testimony-bolt shot at 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 ● 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 ob●ected to Mr. H. by the Cath. Gent. that S. Peter preached to Cornelius a Gentile and therefore that he was not over the Iews onely or exclusively : he Answers that this preaching to Cornelius was before the designation of Provinces , Repl. p. 57. and therefore the argument is of no force . I reply , 't is S. Hierom's argument upon , Gal. c. 2. v. 7. where he moves the present question in these words . Occulta hic oritur quaestio , Quid igitur ? Petrus si invenisset ex Gentibus non eos adducebat ad fidem , &c. here ariseth ( saith hee ) an obscure question ; what if Peter found any Gentiles , did not he bring them to Christ's faith ; or , if Paul found any Iews , did not he move them to the baptis . of Christ , Then he proceeds to solve it , by saying , that one had principale mandatum , a principall charge over Iews and the other over Gentiles , that either side , haberent quem sequerentur , might have one whom they might follow . All which the prudence of Magistrates requires to be practised without limiting Authority as hath been shown . This done he signifies their promiscuous intention to preach to both and consequently their Iurisdiction ( for certainly they did not intend to doe what they had noe right to doe ) in these words , In commune verò hoc eos habuisse propositi , vt Christo ex cunctis gentibus Ecclesiam congregarent ; legimus enim & à S. Petro Gentibus baptizatum fuisse Cornelium & à Paulo in Synagogâ Iudaeorum Christum saepissimè praedicatum . But in common this was both their intentions to gather a Church to Christ out of all nations ; for we read that both Cornelius , a Gentile , was baptized by Peter , and also that Christ was very often preached by Paul in the Synagogue of the Iews . Where , Observe first , that the very question between Dr. H. and mee is here moved by S. Hierom , to wit , concerning the exclusivenes or not exclusivenes of these Apostles Iurisdictions ; or , at least ( for I imagin it impossible S. Hierom should even dream of such an absurd position ) of their acting exclusively . Observe secondly that since their exclusivenes consisted onely in their meeting in the same place , as Dr. H. holds , There and there onely it is ( saith hee , Rep. p. 59. l. 10. ) had S. Hierom been acquainted with any such matter , it had been impossible not to expresse it here ; since the discourse it self necessarily directed him to it . For how could he Answer a question about their exclusivenes , without saying they had such an exclusivenes when they met , if it were true that they had none at all but onely in the occasion . But , alas S. Hierom and all antiquity were ignorant that there would arise in future ages such a quicksighted wit as Dr. H. who could see things better a mile of then they could doe at a yard distance . Oserve thirdly , that it was strange he should not Answer that this particular addiction of theirs was by Apostolical agreement or Dr. H's farther designation , but to put it originized from another occasion . Observe fourthly , that his Answer insists onely upon the principale mandatum , the principall charge to apply themselves thus severally , and expresses it not as an act of distinct Iurisdiction but of a prudent aeconomy , that either side haberent quem sequerentur , might have whom to follow ; to wit , in their neglecting or retaining the Mosaicall institutions , as is shown there ; since , in all likely hood , one side or other would totally have declined from Christ's faith had not this prudent distribution of them selves interven'd Observe fifthly , that this principale mandatum in which S. Hierom places this particular application of themselves was from God ; both , because none on earth had power to lay commands upon those tow Apostles ; as also , because it is sufficiently intimated in the foregoing words ; me Paulum misit ad Gentes , illum posuit in Iudaea he ( to wit God ) sent me to the Gentiles , and placed him in Iudaea ; which being so , it is expresse against Dr. H. who holds that the Commission of Authority as given by God to each Apostle is unlimited , of Schism . p. 70. Observe sixthly , that this speciale mandatum prejudiced nor hindred not their intentions to preach to all Nations exprest by in commune verò , &c. and the following , legimus enim , &c. Observe seaventhly th●● S. Hierom does the same as the Cath. Gent. to wit , makes account that S Peter's preaching to Cornelius a Gentile , prejudices their exclusivenes soe that if Dr. H. have any thing to say against the Cath. Gent. in this point , let him go and wrangle first with S. Hierom. Oserve lastly , that S. Hierom bringing this passage granted by Dr. H. to have happend before his imagind agreement , as an instance against their exclusivenes , and that upon the 2. to the Gal. the agreement is supposed to be made , shows plainly that S. Hierom made account that there was noe agreement at all made in this point ; or that , if there were , things stood in the same manner after the fancied agreement as before it ; otherwise this instance of his had been to noe purpose ; being of a passage happening long before it . This Testimony of S. Hierom I at first intended onely to let Mr. H. see that this learned father made the same argument as the Cath. Gent. did ; but , finding it the most expresse for our controversy that Antiquity affords , ( as far as I have read ) since it proposes and solves the very question between us I thought good to let the reader see how far Antiquity was from Dr. H's chimericall tenet of exclusive Provinces , and how perfectly for ours of the Apostles still-Vniversall Iurisdictions ; each expression here found being either emphaticall for us , or else sounding clearly to our manifest advantage by seconding ad confirming our explication of this place and passage . Sect. 9. Dr. H's manner of arguing to prove that S. Peter had no singular supremacy ( as hee styles it ) at Hierusalem . NOthing is so weak but falshood , which is weaknes it self , can think it worth producing to strengthen it self by ; and , as this breeds acceptance , so passion and desperation forces the unfortunate Patrons of a self-ruinous cause cling to the feeblest shadows as to most substantiall proofs to underprop their weak Ivy. This is seen by pitifull experience in Dr. H. who is enamored on every toy , though the passage or expression be perfectly indifferent , absolutely disparate , nay some times quite opposit to him , so his strong antipathy against the Pope , join'd with his smooth-sly art can make a quodlibeticall dish of it to please the palates of his partiall friends or unattentive Readers . Each leaf of his hitherto hath given us severall instances of this true charge yet none more evidently then this present passage now to be replied upon . He told us confidently of Schism p. 73. that he quite took of all pretensions of S. Peter to the singular supremacy there , that is , at Hierusalem , where S. Iames was Bishop : his Disarmer askt him and now asks him again what he meās by singular supremacy there ? was ever the Pope's Authority drest up in such an expression as this of singular supremacy : would not supremacy have served the turn , if he had a mind to be rightly understood , without such an odd Epithet ? or , if he would needs give it an Epithet why should it not rather universall , then singular . Again , what means his adding the words [ there . ] The supremacy in debate betwixt us is neither subject to Here 's nor There 's , but universall and spreading it self to all places in the whole Christian world . All the singularity and particularity shown there at Hierusalem was of S. Iames being particular Bishop of that place ; and then indeed by proving S. Iames such ; he quite takes of S. Peter's pretension to such a singular supremacy ; but what is this to his being chief of the Apostles ? cannot one be so without being particular Bishop of each see in the world ? I excepted therefore against that illphrad title of honor , [ singular supremacy ] as an ambiguous word , and apt to make the vulgar Reader imagin that S. Peter's universal authority is lost if any one be found singularly supreme in his own see ; and I had good reason to be iealous of it , knowing it to be one of Dr H's best arts to couch himself in odd indifferent expressions which help't by some circumstances ( litle more then indifferent also ) may make the Reader apt to take them in a sinister sence , and yet leave an evading hole for the Dr. to say afterwards when his Adversary should challenge him , that he meant otherwise Thus much for his uncouth expression of [ singular supremacy ] as it was found alone in his book of Schism without a Comment ; here in his Answ . p. 42. he explicates himself to mean , such a supremacy as was not common to the other tow eminent Apostles ; which is as wise as the text it self , and intimates thus much , that they had each supremacy there , but that S Peter's supremacy was not singular or above theirs ; which would ground this pretty contradiction to the former that none at all were supreme but all equall Or if he meant not that each was supreme there in respect of the other , then what needed he add singular at all ? let him but grant us onely a supremacy in S. Peter in respect of the other Apostles , and we shall not desire him to add the frivolous word ( singular ) nor needed he impugn soe powerfully that expression which we never challenged nor stood upon , nay not soe much as heard of till he coin'd it . But I accept of his comment ; let it mean such a supremacy ( Authority , he would have said ) as was not common to the two other eminent Apostles , who does he impugn it , or , as he pretends , quite take of S. Peter's pretensions to it . Because ( saith hee of Schism p. 73. ) S. Iames his Iurisdiction was not by Peter alone entrusted unto him , but by Iames and Iohn together with Peter : so that the argument stands thus ; S. Peter cannot be higher in Authority , unles he does all things alone by himself . Is not this excellent ? But , what follows is superexcellent and transcendently rationall ; his Disarmer shew'd his consequence naught , because an Arch-bishop going to consecrate a Bishop uses to take two other Bishops with him , which yet argues not that the Arch-bishop hath any greater Authority than a Bishop : soe that as it is inconsequent to say , an Arch bishop does not alone entrust a Bishop with a Bishoprick , but takes two Bishops a long with him to do it , therefore he hath noe higher Authority then the Bishops he takes with him ; so , it is equally inconsequent to say , S. Peter did not alone entrust Iames with the Bishoprick of Hierusalem but took Peter and Iohn with him , therefore he had no higher Authority then Peter and Iohn . This consequence absolutely denied by me and an instance given to shew by parity the weaknes of it , it was his task to strengthen it here ; yet he hath the confidence to repeat it , and , in stead of sodering the incoherence of it , catches at my instance and tells me it neither does nor ever will be made appear by S. W. that S. Peter was an Arch bishop in respect of those two other suffragan Bishops Iames and Iohn . Did I say S. Peter was an Arch-bishop and the other two his suffragans ? what means then this laying out my words in such a forme ? that he had higher Authority was mine and the Catholike Tenet which higher Authority I showd not invalidated by his taking other two with him by the parity of an Arch-bishops carriage in the like case , and hence denied the consequence : yet in despight of Logick and the commonest rules of disputing he is resolved his consequence shall hold till I who am the defendent and am answering his argumēt prove mine own tenet and turn to be Opponent , making it appear ( as he candidly expresses it ) that S. Peter was an Arch-bishop , and the other two his suffragans . The summe then is this Dr. H. argues thus S. Peter took other two with him to consecrate Iames , therefore he hath noe higher Authority then those he took with him ; I Answer denying the consequence , and affirming that he might be higher in Authority notwithstanding ; showing it by a parity ; what does our disputant ? in stead of strengthening his weak consequence he onely replies , I marry but you shall never prove nor make it appear that S. Peter was higher in Authority then the other two ; whereas any one , who is meanly acquainted with the most ordinary laws of disputing , knows it is his part who is here the Opponent to make his consequence appear valid and concluding , mine , who am the defendant , or Answerer to deny , grant or distinguish onely , not to prove my Tenet or make it appear . Perhaps Mr. H. having got some credit for ordinary sleight pulpit sence , may still in the judgment of some preiudiced or weak understandings conserve his credit by such Evasions ; but I am confident that any knowing sincere man will acknowledge that any freshman in the Vniversity would be hist out of the schools , if he defended his argument noe better then the Dr. hath proved his consequence . He adds a Testimony out of Clemens , which he sayes deserves to be consider'd ( Answ . p. 42. 43. ) and it shall have it's full desert . 'T is this , that Peter , Iames and Iohn being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , honored before the rest by our Lord did not contend for dignity , but those Iames the first Bishop of Hierusalem , which Testimony is very expresse that they all chose him , and did not wrangle in chosing him ; but as for Dr. H's purpose , what it makes for that none but himself can tell us , where ( saith he ) the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or precedence , that Peter had from Christ , is common to Iames and Iohn also , and so no singular supremacy . The force then lies in the ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or , honoured before the rest ) and in it's being spoken in the plurall number in common : I ask then and put it to Dr. H's choice ; does this word sound priority or preeminence in Authority and Iurisdiction , or does it not , but some other priority , as of favour , gifts &c. If it does , then it makes these three Apostles superior in Iurisdiction to the rest and puts the rest subject to them , which Dr. H. will ( Iam sure ) by noe means admit nay expresly denies in this very page . If it does not , then what does it concern our question , which is about Iurisdiction● for let the rest be never soe much before S. Peter in all other regards , yet as long as they are not equall'd to S. Peter in Iurisdiction and Authority , still our Tenet is in tire to us and untuch't . Testimonies therefore which can make against us must concern Iurisdiction , and shew an equality among the Apostles in that ; of which since this place cannot be understood , as hath been shown , it cannot consequently pretend to tuch us at all . Again admit the honoring above the rest ; spoke in common of these three Apostles , signified any Iurisdiction or higher degree of Authority , yet how does it appear hence that one of these three was not honoured above the other two ; since the words themselves expresse nothing to the contrary but easily permit it to be so without any violence offer'd to their sence ; Cities are honored more then Villages , yet it follows not from these words that all Cities are of equall honor with one another . Soe miserably weak is Dr. H's reason , which is onely declamation pitch , that it cannot be imagin'd , unlesse a man had his strong fancy , how his best testimonies , which deserve , as he tells us , such consideration , can in any manner concern the question for which they are alledged , nor carry home to the meanest semblance or shadow of a conclusion . But to proceed ; having proved gallantly from three being honored before the rest an equality of that honor in all those three , and supposed against his own Tenet that this preference of honor means Iurisdiction and Authority , and so that these three Apostles were equall in that respect , he adds , and as such they chose and ordain'd the brother of the Lord ; which , sure , is not after the manner of an Arch-bishop and his suffragan Bishops , where you see the upshot of all exprest in his sure-footed conclusion , which sure , &c. depends upon the ( as such ) and the ( as equall in Authority , ) and that ( as such ) depends upon Dr. H's invention ; no such reduplicative expression being found in the testimony : so that , as long experience hath tought us , Dr. H's arguments and testimonies put to the Analytick test , are resolved into his own sayngs and self confident sures , as into their first principles and the ground work of his testimonies , which are allowed onely to descant and reflect glancingly upon his own more substantiall , solid and pregnant affirmations . Thus much to show how impossible it is this testimony should prejudice us ; now ( though we have better grounds then to stand need to build upon it ) in all probability it makes rather for us : for , what strange matter was it or worth taking notice of , that they should not contend for dignity about chusing him , if they were all equall in digni●y ? what soe high commendation is it in those Apostles that none of them strove for preeminence of Authority , if there had been unquestionably none at all belonging to any one of them ? Or what novelty is it that persons of equall Authority should doe things by common consent ? Whereas , had some one had power to do it alone , and yet condescended to it with the joint-consent and joint-execution of others , the carriage was worth observation for the particularity of their peaceablenes , humility , mutuall confidence and brotherly charity . After this worthy testimony comes hobbling in a Scripture-proof , to make good all that went before , in this form . And so also in the place to the Gal. e. 2. v. 9. Iames and Cephas and Iohn are equally dignified by S. Paul and have all there the style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , seeming to be pillars . This testimony hath two parts as it is put by Mr. H. the first , that they were equally dignified by S. Paul in the 9. v. the second , that they are all three called pillars . But as for the first look in the place and you shall find noe other note of their being equally dignified save onely that these three are named together . Hath not this Dr. of Divinity a strange reach of reason , who can conclude men equall in Authority because he finds their names in the same place ? so that , should he hap to find the King , Tom fool and Iohn a Nokes named all together , presently his levelling logick concludes them all equally dignified . The like acutenes is shown in the second part which sounds to the same time , both being non-sence in Ela. They are all called pillars , ergo , they are all equall , cries the Dr. as if one pillar could not be higher then another . But he makes noe distinction between a community and an equality , nor will vouchsafe to understand that degrees are notions superadded to the common species of things ; whatever things he finds named by the same name in the plurall number , presently he makes them go a breast in the same degree of height or worth . He would make a rare man to write a book of logick for the levellers : If he ●bserves that peasants , as well as Princes , agree in the common name of men , and are call'd so in the plurall , presently he concludes that peasants and Princes are equally dignified the Lord Ma or of London and the Geffer Major of Grims●y are equall in Authority and dignity by the same reason , because they are both in the plurall called Majors . Nor onely this but Cities , Commonwealths rivers , horses , books noses , mountains , starrs , and universally all things in the world must be levell'd into an equality , because the common name in the plurall agrees to all of each kind , by Dr H's paralell logick which concludes the Apostles equall because they are called pillars , nay even from their being named together . Is the answering such a pitifull Adversary worth the losse of an hovers time , were it not that the sleight-reasond preaching-vogue , which now takes vulgar heads , had got him an opinion amongst many , and so , by means of that , not by any force of his reasons , enabled him to do mischief , unlesse his wilfull and affected weaknesses be laid open . I might hope also for some ameandment from another , but I finde him so long beaten to his slender-woven cobwebb declamation-stuffe , I despaire that all these friendly reprehensions will make him reflect upon his weak reasonings and make them stronger for the future . He was told in Schism Disarm'd of the same faults ; to wit , of proving the Apostles equally foundation-stones , because they were all called so in the plurall ; that the Apostles were all equall because that common Appellation in the plurall was given to all ; that none had more power then another ( that is all had equal power ) because each sitt vpon a throne to judge , that is had power onely ; that the Spirit satt without distinction , that is equally upon each , because the Scripture sayes in common that it sate upon them ; that all had the holy ghost equally ( by the plowmans argument for the equality of his eggs ) because all were full of it . For these and other faults of the same strain Dr. H. was reprehended by his Disarmer , yet still noe amends not hopes of amends appears , in these answering books after he had been so oft told of it , nor by consequence are we to expect any other from him in his following treatises . Sect. 10. Dr. H's Pretences of Testimonies ( as hee calls them ) and his manifold falsification of S. Chrysostome , to prove Iames at Hierusalem clearly superiour to S. Peter . AS for the point it self concerning S. Iames , I am reprehended for misunderstanding Dr. H. and that he endeauored not to prove S. Iames his priority of dignity and Authority , but onely to prove that in his see James was considered as a Bishop , Answ . p. 43. l. 20. 21. and 27. whereas neither any man denied him to have been Bishop there , nor could it any way advantage Dr. H's cause if this were ptoved ; for what follows against S. Peter's being chief of the Apostles that S. Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem , and the Iurisdiction of that Metropolis ? Hath not each Catholike Bishop the same now a dayes over his private Diocese , and yet remains subject to the head of God's Church notwithstanding ? Again , if he intended not that S. Iames had greater Authority there , what meant his fiction of his having the principall place , and giving the sentence , that the Rescript is grounded upon his sentence , &c. Surely when one gives the sentence , and the others onely propose , the former must be held to have greater power in that place and those circumstances then the latter . But [ principall ] with him sounds noe priority at all , nor can he be held to any thing who hath got once the priviledge to say and unsay again as hee pleases . He was accused of making S. Iames at Hierusalem , superior to S. Peter , which he denies p. 43. blaming me for misunderstanding him , yet in the p. 44. ere the Eccho of the former words were well out of the Reader 's ears , he goes about to prove and infer in expresse words from testimonies that Iames in this council was clearly superior to S. Peter ; which is clearly contradictory to his former words . But we are not to wonder at what is grown customary and familiar . Next , he goes about to shew ( Answ . p. 44. ) that he hath at least pretences of testimonies that S. Iames had the principall place , the first of which pretences is , that he is named before Peter , and unlesse this conclude our argument from S. Peter's being named first must be prejudiced . I Answer , our argument drawn thence for his principall place among the Apostles insists upon his constantly being named first , and not once onely ; which might happen without any great mistery in it . Again , what mean these words , the Romanists argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , concluding his primacy from being first named . These are two quite different things . The argument from his being first named , consists in this , that in the orderly naming of the Apostles his name is found first placed : whereas , the argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lies in this , not that he is first named , but that he is in these words nam'd or exprest to be the first of the Apostles . His second pretence of a Testimony , as he calls it , is from S. Iames his giving the sentence ; and though their own translation rendred the words [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] wherefore my sentence is , by this means making it onely his iudgment in the matters , yet Dr. H. tells us , he still beleeves it signifies the sentence . The first ground of this his beleef is , because 't is S. Chrysostomes observation that his speaking last was founded in his being Bishop of Hierusalem : what then ? could not he be Bishop there and speak last both , without giving the sentence ? were there noe worthier persons present , or did the thing to be concluded onely concern his see , or indeed did it concern it at all ? the Rescript , the effect of this consult , being directed onely to Gentiles , which were noe wayes subject to the Bishoprick of Hierusalem . But let us see S. Chrysostomes testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was Bishop of the Church in Hierusalem therefore he speaks last , unfortunate man ! with whom nothing succeeds , nor any testimony thrives , but either they are against him or nothing at all to his purpose , as hath been shown all over ; or when they hap to be full and expresse ( as this is ( then they come of worst of all . Let him look into their own edition of S. Chrysostome and Dannaeus his Notes upon them , printed at Eton , and he shall see what is become of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore he speaks last upon which onely hee builds ; verba haec ( saith hee ) interpres non agnoscit , nec certè videntur aptè locari ; nam , quòd Episcopus esset , ideò prior loqui debuit , non posterior . The Interpr●ter doth not acknowledge these words , neither truly doe they seem to be fitly placed : for , in regard he was a Bishop he ought in that respect to speak first not last . But 't is noe matter , Dr. H. can cast a figure of hysteron proteron , make first be last , and any corrupt piece of an Author become pure Chrysostome and rare sence , so it do but be befriend him at a dead lift . His second worthy proof is that S. Chrysostome sayes that Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ordains or decrees those things . As if the decree were not manifestly made by all present but by Iames onely , and called there by S. Chrysostome himself , p. 795. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common decree ; yet , because he finds an expression of decreeing , common ( as he wel knows ) to all that were present , but , ( his present occasion not inviting him ) not taken notice of by S. Chrysostome in that place , imediately S. Iames is thence concluded the best man in the companie , the giver of the sentence , or whatever else Dr. H. pleases . Any thing may be aswel inferd as that which he pretends . Again , I would ask Dr. H. why he leaves out the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from the law , which were imediately joind in context with the former thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he ordains those things out of the law , by this simple putting down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gaining something a better semblance for the absolutenesse of S. Iames his decree . But I shall have occasion to explicate hereafter this whole place out of which Dr. H. ) as his sleight manner is ) picks out a couple of words . His third proof is from S. Chrysostome's setting down the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good order observed in their speaking first I will transcribe the place as I find it in that father , and afterwards let the Reader see how craftily Dr. H. abuses it for his purpose . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . There was no haughtines in that congregation , but good order , or ( as the Interpreter renders it ) benè composita omnia , all things well composed . After Peter Paul speaks and no man interrupts him ; Iames represses himself and do's not dissent . He was entrusted with the principality ) Bishoprick ) Iohn sayes nothing here , the other Apostles say nothing , but keep silence and take it not ill ; soe pure from vain glory was their Soul. Where we see the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good order spoken of consisted in this that they did not interrupt one another in speaking , as is the custome of haughty and vainglorious persons , but any one spoke without disturbance what he had to say ; not in this , that such an one spoke first , this man the second , another last . This is euident by the place as taken in it self let us see now how Mr. H. works upon it . He had already proved from his late-mentioned unauthentick testimony that S. Iames had the principall place because he spoke last ; then he names the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which hee englishes , good order , in speaking , set down ( as he sayes ) by S. Chrysostome ; Next , he leaves out all those words which might manifest what was meant in that place by good order , to wit that there was noe haughtinesse in that Congregation , that their Souls were free from vainglory which should have shewn plainly that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or good order consisted onely in behaving themselves modestly and peaceably and not in the best man's speaking last . Thirdly he tells us that after Peter Paul speaks but leaves out the following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and noe man stops his mouth or hinders him , lest we should apprehend that the good order consisted onely in this that they did not interrupt one another in speaking , which apprehēsion would have spoile'd the Drs good order of the principall man speaking last fourthly , to hinder the Reader from the same right apprehension , he omitts all the words following that which related to Iames , to wit Iohn sayes nothing here , the other Apostles say nothing , but keep silence and take it not ill , because it was impossible that Keeping silence , and saying nothing , should signify good order inspeaking ; which hee pretends is meant there Fifthly , by picking out of the testimony these words , after Peter Paul speaks and Iames forbears , and interposes not , for he was entrusted with the ( Bishoprick or ) principality , and there ending , he gains a rare semblance for his purpose that S. Chrysostome made S. Iames for good order's sake reserve himself till the last , because hee was the best man ; whereas take the whole entire testimony concerning that matter ) more then three quarters of which he omitts , ) and it is most evident to every ordinary Reader 's eye that it is impossible it should signify any such matter , as hath been shown . Sixthly , to come to that imperfect piece of a testimony , and mangled by him to corrupt the sence which is the soule of it , the Interpreter acknowledgeth not the causall particle [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ] upon which he builds S. Iames his warines not to speak till his turn the last place . Seventhly had Mr. H. been soe candid as to put the words as he found them in the context , related to so particularly by himself , tom . 4. p. 796. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Iames flies not back or resists not , without recurring to the marginall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , interposes not , all colour had been wastht of from his sophisticated testimony , even as drest up by himself . For , what coherence make these words in Dr. H's grounds , he resists not , for he was entrusted with the Bishoprick , if the being a Bishop they gave him the principall place , and soe made him more able to resist or dissent . Add that the Interpreter to whom his own side defer much render's it non resilit , he flies not back , which makes the marginall word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( to which Dr. H. recurrs without giving us notice of it ) lesse authentick . In a word the whole testimony manifests onely that they demeaned themselves peaceably and quietly without contentions and proud interrupting one another ; and the particular line , pickt out by his sence-corrupting art , notes on the by , amongst other things which show'd their humble and peaceable charity , that one of these namely S. Iames had a particular charge over the Iewish Sect , whose cause it seemd to be to observe the Mosaicall law and soe it was by consequence his Interest to oppose S. Peter and S. Paul's contrary Verdict ; yet not withstanding , such was his peaceable carriage that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he resists not , or as the Interpreter render's it , Iacobus fert & non resilit , illi erat principatus concreditus , with comes to this sence that he suffers it quietly and flies not back from their fore determination , although the charge he had seemd to engage him rather to favour the Iewish party . But Dr. H. by omitting all the words which could shew the true import of the place , by taking a line onely which could by additional arts give a glosse to another quite-disparate sence , by mangling that otherwise-something unfitt line by adding it after his former testimony of being Bishop because he spoke last ; by introducing it with these confident words [ and yet more expressely setting down the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good order observed in their speaking ] then , by putting the maimed and corrupted testimony down thus , After Peter Paul speaks and Iames forbears and interposes not , for he was entrusted with the Principality , and lastly , by shutting up close his testimony there , lest the vigor of it should take aire by admitting in the following words ; by all these numerous evasions , I say , he makes the honest and unwary Reader beleeve that S. Chrysostome sets down their good order in speaking ( as hee renders it , ) to consist in this that Iames having the principall place forbears till the rest have done , and speaks in the last place as his higher dignity and as the Dr. expresses it a little after his being clearly superior to S. Peter required where as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good order spoken of there , rather signifies noe order at all as Mr. H. takes order ; but that he who had any thing to say might freely and quietly speak without feare of being proudly check't or contentiously interrupted by another . Lastly I would know with what face Mr. H. renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies onely good order [ good order in speaking ] since 't is plain from the testimony that S. Iohn and the rest of the Apostles spake nothing at all , and yet they are put there as bearing part in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or orderly and quiet demeanour here spoken of . So that the words [ of speaking ] are added by Dr. H's own imagination to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good order , and for no other end but to prove that the first should speake last . This manner of alledging Testimonies may be reckon'd as another head or common-place of Dr. H's wily shifts ; and consists in this , that though the whole scope and import of the Testimony be against him , he touches sleightly and in passing , as it were , at two or three words of it , which taken alone and introduced with a handsome boldnes seem to sound for his purpose whereas the whole import of the place is either point-blank opposite , or quite disparate , at the best half a dozen indifferently-appliable words found in it , sometimes scarce a monosyllable , as hath been shown all over in Schism Disarm'd , see in particular his ample and pregnant testimony from the bare and vulgar monosyllable [ come . ] Schism Dis . p. 81. Sect. 11. Other self contradictory proofs , wilfull mistakes and wily sleights of Dr. H's to maintain the same point . AFter this hysteron-proteron , testimony concerning Iames his first-last place , we have another from S. Chrysostome thus put down by Mr. H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. for thus ( speaking of S. Iames ) it behoves him that is in great power or Authority to leave the sharper things to others , and himself to draw his arguments from the gentler and milder Topicks , and hence Mr. H. infers James in this councill clearly superior to S. Peter . This seems terrible ; but , to render good for evill and not to wrong Dr. H. who thus baffles us with testimonies , we will make himself the rule of interpreting this place . He tells us p. 43. that he pretends not that any of the other Apostles had any greater Authority then Peter , much lesse Iames the Bishop of Hierusalem , who , as he supposes , was none of the twelve , but onely that as Bishop he had the principall place even in S. Peter's presence . How this equall power of all the Apostles consists with S. Peter having no power save over one portion of the dispersed Iews onely , as Dr. H. affirmed of Schism p. 71. I will not now examin ▪ with concerns us to observe in it is onely this , that he produces not these testimonies to prove the greater power of any in this councill , but onely the principall places of Iames. This being clearly his meaning , ( as it is also more particularly exprest throughout this whole tenth paragraph in the end of which this Testimony is found , what mean the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great power , in which the whole force of his testimony lies ? does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vse to signify place , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principall , or both of them together principal place as that is contradistinguisht from greater power ? How come then the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify principall place ? That he had in that place great power which the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , directly and properly signify , we willingly grant ; since we deny not his being Bishop there but that he had greater , or , as Dr. H. expresses it , was clearly superiour to S. Peter , is both expressely contradictory to himself , and to his whole scope and intention ; which was to prove as he tells us not his greater power but principall place onely But let us grant that Dr. H. hath forgot what he was about ; and that in stead of proving the principall place onely , he having light on an odd testimony which spoke expresly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power infers there-upon that Iames was clearly superior there to S. Peter , meaning in power ; let all this I say be granted and pardoned , if S. Iames were superior there in power to S. Peter , I suppose he was likewise superior to the rest ; ( for I fear not that Dr. H. should deny his inference of all the Apostles equality from their being called foundation-stones pillars and Apostles in the plurall ) then I ask whither Dr. H. thinks in his conscience that these Apostles who had Authority to constitute Iames Bishop there had not Authority likewise to remove him , if they saw it convenient ? if they had , then they had an Authority superior to S. Iames even in his own see ; and , I would ask Dr. H. even in his own grounds why S. Peter should not be his superior still aswel as S. Paul was yet superior to Timothy and Titus after they were fixt Bishops S. Iames being constituted Bishop in Iudea shown to have been S. Peter's Province ; ( I mean such Province as he is pretended to have had ) as well as the Gentiles , over whom Timothy and Titus were constituted Bishops were pretended to bee S. Paul's Province . Again wee will pardon Dr. H. his affirmation that the Apostles distributed their universal great Province into severall lesser ones . Those famous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and yet giving S. Iames here an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Province also , whom he holds here to be no Apostle . Or if Dr. H. refuse to accept the pardon and fall to qualify thefact , then I vse my advantage and vrge him ; was S. Iames independent , or was he still subject as Timothy , and Titus are held by himself to have been , even after they ; were Bishops ? If he were independent , then he went a breast with the Apostles in self Authority , and had his catachrestically-nam'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , aswell as they ; But , if he remain'd still subject , then his territory being amongst the Iews , and S Peter being by Dr. H's exclusive place of Scripture nam'd Apostle of the Iews in the same tenour as S. Paul was over the Gentiles . Gal. 2. it is given us by Dr. H's grounds that in all probability he could be subject to none but to the Apostle of the Iews S. Peter , and that in his own see , which was in S. Peter's Province , at lest that kind of Province which he can be pretended from Scripture to have had . But what should those words of Dr. H's signify ( Answ . p. 43. ) that in his see Iames was considered as a Bishop , and so had the principall place even in Peter's presence . Cannot one be a Bishop , but he must sit in a council before his betters ? Suppose the Apostles had constituted a Bishop of Rochester in England , and assembled themselves there in conuncil ; must therefore the honest Bishop of Rochester sit before S. Peter , and the rest of the Apostles ? Nay more , let us imagin a nationall council to bee met there , ought not the Bishop of Rochester give place to his Metropolitan the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , and let him pronounce the sentence ? yet D. H. here out of his ill will to the Pope's predecessour S. Peter , will let S. Iames do neither though he hold's him to have been no Apostle . But 'ts sufficient with him that he is a Bishop in that place to infer him to bee clearly superiour to all there , to have the principall place , give the sentence , and what not ? Nor matters it that even according to Dr. H. the others are Apostles and he none , nor how high they , how low he bee in Authority ; if S. Peter bee in company , the private Bishop shall be clearly superiour to them all ; whereas , had he been absent , S. Iames had neither been thus exalted , nor the other Apostles thus depres't 't was S. Peter's being there which put all out of order . Lastly , what means his inference of his being clearly superiour in that council ? This is the most unlikely point of all the rest ; this council ( as hath been shown ) concern'd not S. Iames his particular Iurisdiction , but the common good of the Church , of which the Apostles were overseer's ; nor did this in particular concern S. Iames , who ( as Dr. H. here grants ) was none of the Apostles . In a word , if he contend that they let him have the principall place out of a respectfull and courteous deference upon another score , as he was our Lord's brother and very ancient , let him bring authentick testimonies that they did so , and wee shall easily grant it . But what does courtesy concern power , or the right to a thing , or place . Thus wee read that Pope Anicetus , gave S. Polycarp the preeminence even in his own Church , yet wee think not that his civill condescension wrong'd his Iurisdiction ; though ( I know ) if Dr. H. could prove so much of S. Iames here , all were lost to S. Peter without hopes of recovery . But if he proves his principal place by right upon the account onely of being Bishop there , 't is infinitly weak , and inconsequent ; reason absolutely disclaiming any such inference ; and as for authority the very testimonies he brings to prove it are either expressely against him and contrary to his own grounds , or els unauthentick ; or , lastly , nothing at all to his purpose , as hath been shown . His next testimony that S. Iames saith , with power I iudge , makes neither for him nor against us : since wee grant that each here had power , and vsed that power invoting or decreeing ; soe hath , and doth each member in Parlament , which yet consists wel enough with their different degrees of power in thus voting , and decreeing ; so that , though wee read that one member did it , upon an occasion relating to him in particular , without excluding the rest , wee cannot upon that negative argument either infer that he alone did so , or pronounced the Decree , unles his expression had something particular , not competent to the rest ; As for example , had it been phras'd thus . Let it be enacted , Bee it decreed , &c. there had been some ground that he pronounced the sentence , but his words being onely I iudge , or ( as their own translation renders it ) my sentence is , which sounds no higher strain of authority nor any thing not equally-competent to any or each of the rest , since each might without any great ambition , say , my sentence is thus , and thus , 't is impossible any reason unprejudiced can think any more deducible thence then that his particular sentence was exprest by those words . Thus much for the words , following Dr. H's explication of them . But to give S. Chrysostome leave to explicate himself , let us hear what hee sayes . In the same Homily and upon the same passage wee find these words ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he with good reason ordains those things to witt to abstain from things strangled , &c. out of the law , lest he should seem to abrogate the law : then follows , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And observe how he lets not them hear those things from the law , but from himself , saying I iudge , that is from my self , not having heard it from the law . Where we have two things remarkable in this prudent cariage of S. Iames , whose circumstances ( being Bishop , and Resident in Hierusalem ) required on the one side that he should not disgust the Iews his Diocesans by seeming to sleight the law ; on the other side he was not to wrong Christianity , by making those things necessary to be observed precisely upon this account because the law of Moses prescribed them . To compose himself equally in this case without giving offence to one side , or other , S. Chrysostome observes first that he ordains these things out of the law , that is , such things as were materially found in the law ; and commanded there , and so auoids the Iews displeasure ; but does not ordain them formally , because they were commanded by the law , soe avoiding the wronging of Christianity , but of himself who as an Apostle had power to do such things : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I iudge , that is , of my self ( or own Authority ) not as having heard it from the law ; that is , not as from the Authority of the law of Moses . This being so , the words cited by Dr. H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I iudge , that is , I say with power , is given by all reason to signify the same as the former explication now layd out at large , and of which this seems to bee onely a brief repetition . For first , why should wee imagine that S. Chrysostome , should give two disparate interpretations of the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in the self same circumstances ? Next , were it not onely a repetition of the former , why is he so short in this latter explicatiō as to passe it over sleightly in these words ; nothing neither before , nor after relating to that interpretation . Thirdly because the words I say with power are perfectly consonant to the other , I say it of my self , not as from the law : that is , from mine own power not from the power of the law , to which mine succeeds , And lastly because if wee look more narrowly into the place wee shall find that neither Testimony is an explication of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which signifies iudging , or ( as Dr. H. will needs have it ) giving the sentence , but of the emphatical [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I ; ] which in the first place denoting a self authoritative expression of his power in opposition to the law and it's power , consequently in the latter place , where the emphasis of the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is explicated by [ with power ] there is no ground imaginable why it should signify otherwise than the forme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of my self ; or , why it should have any emphaticall relation or opposition to any other Authority save that of the law onely . So that there is not the slenderest appearance of S. Iames his having the principall place , or giving the sentence , from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , with power more than from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of my self . This self power there spoken of relating to the law 's no power nor influence of power in thus decreeing , not to the other Apostles lesser power then his as Bishop . But , as his ordinary custome is , Dr. H. picks out any two words , neglecting to consider the true import of the father's meaning by them , and having thus singled them out , he onely touches them sleightly with a grave carelesnes and thinks the deed is done . What follows in his 12. paragraph craves onely that the Readers would vse their eyes to avoyd his crafts who would blind them , All I need do in answer is to quote particularly the places in which I am sure there can bee no deceit . Dr. H. told us in the last 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 first of the quire always begins to speak first . What can bee more expressly destructive to Dr. H's tenet , and interpretation of this place , yet ( it not belonging to me at this time to alledge testimonies , and object ) I went not far to fetch it , or seek it in remote Authors , but took the first obvious testimony I met , in this very father which he chuses here for his best Patron , and in that very treatise which he built upon , as most expresse , for this his altogether-unwarrantable position . Nor consequently can it bee imagin'd but that Dr. H. must needs see how averse S. Chrysostome was from what he would make him professe , in case hee ever look't into the very Author he quotes , and most relies on . Sect. 12. How weakly Dr. H. argues to prove S ▪ Paul's Authority equall to S. Peter's . S. Chrysostomes iudgment concerning S. Peter's Supremacy . I had granted that the conferring the honor or dignity of Apostle upon S. Paul was not dependent on S. Peter , and that the place cited Gal. 1. showing that he had it immediatly from Christ concluded very well for that purpose , yet concluded nothing against us , who never held the contrary tenet . But , I deny'd absolutely that the dignity given was not inferior , subordinate , and in that sence dependent on S. Peter , and that any such thing was deducible from that place whence Dr H. pretended to prove it . Now what the duty of an Opponent is in these circumstances every boy in the Vniversity can inform Mr. H. to wit , to make good his consequence , and to manifest that the conclusion follows , out of these premises , or that place whence he pretended to deduce it . What does this Dr. of Divinity ? first he tells us Answ . p. 46. that S. W. ought in any reason to have offer'd some proof for this ; ( to wit , that the power given was subordinate , or dependent on S. Peter ) which he knows is most deny'd by the Protestants . A secure method of disputing ? Let us put it into a paral●ell , and wee shall see what a rare Logician this Dr. is . Put case then that himself were to maintain and prove that Logick were no Science but an Art , and should argue thus ; The end of Logick is not Contemplation , but Action ; therefore Logick is no Science . His adversary ( as S. W. did ) distinguishes his consequent ; therefore 't is no Speculative Science , I grant it ; therefore 't is no practicall Science , I deny it , I marry replyes Dr. H. but you must prove one part of your own distinction , and manifest that Logick is a practicall Science , nay more tells him gravely ( as he tells mee here ) that , unles he can make it appear , hee cannot say it is such with any sobriety , after which learned carriage , I suppose the Reader who hath onely studied Logick a fortnight will imagin that the whole schools fall a hissing at my notable Adversary , who speaks non-sence with such gravity and sobriety ; and acquit his Antagonist from any note of insobriety , save onely his indiscretion to think the answering such an adversary worth his pains . Secondly he answers , that unles the same Christ that gave him this power immediatly appear to have subjected it to S. Peter , as clearly , as that he gave him the power , which 't is certain appear's not , this cannot be sayd with any sobriety . Where besides the relapse into the same fault of exacting his Respondent should make his own distinction appear , it is worth observation how cautious the Dr. is to make all sure against S. Peter's Primacy . It must be the same Christ which must do this , lest there be juggling underhand . A weighty caution ? and he must appear full as clearly , to have subjected this power , as to have given it : extreme rigour ! or else S. W. must forfeit his sobriety for affirming it . Hard measure ! In answer ; I am not afraid of all these cautions but tell him more , and stick not to assure him that it equally apperes to me , as it appears that Christ is God. If he startle at this , and demand by what means I can give him such an assurance ? I reply , that the voyce of the Catholick Church , infallible , because ever built upon the testification of a world of immediate fathers and Pastours , equally ascertain'd all who deserted not that Rule for that point , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Simon the first signified not an onely-complementary but Efficacious Primacie in the Church as it did ascertain them , or does the Protestants against the Socinians that the words I and my Father are one signify an vnity in Divine Nature or the Godhead : and the like I say of all other places of Scripture which can be pretended to ascertain it infallibly . This voyce of the Church equally , I say , ascertains one point as the other ; by which words I mean not but that the latter point concerning Christ's Godhead is in it self , out of the nature of the thing , of more eminent and immediate necessity for salvation then the former ; but my meaning onely is that the testification , and recommendation of it , as comming from Christ is equall in the one , as in the other , being indeed the self fame . But perhaps Mr. H. will deny the infallibility of immediate attestation which sometimes he grants at unawares ( Answ . p. 36. ) and will have it equally appear by Scripture . If so , then I set an Anabaptist upon his back , arm'd with Dr. H's own words , and let them scuffle for it . Vnles the same Christ ( sayes the Anabaptist ) appear as clearly from Scripture to have commanded the Apostles to baptize little children which yet beleeve not , as to have sent them to baptize beleevers ( which 't is certain appears not ) it cannot be said with any sobriety that an Infāt ought to be baptized . Thus Mr. H. trips up his own heels when he thought to kick at S. Peter , and the Anabaptist getts the upper hand . Or if Dr. H. runns to Tradition for the certainty of one point , and denyes it's certainty for another , then he is to be askt by the Anabaptist why he should in reason rely upon that Authority which himself grants is taken in aly in the point of Peter's Primacy , and in all the other points in which Catholicks differ from them ? and also S. W. must demand by what securer Rule he guids him self when he affirms it hath err'd in some , and not in other points , and why it may not perhaps erre in all if it can erre in any . But why must I bee accus'd of want of sobriety , for distinguishing without making the parts of my distinction appear , and yet Dr. H. who is the Opponent , passe for a sober man though he says what he pleases at randome , nay more , places in his confident self affirmations the summe of his whole Defence . He tells us here wee must make it appear that this power was subjected to S. Peter ; but himself makes it not appear wee doe not , by any other argument then this , that he assures the Reader within a parenthesis , that 't is certain it appears not , what ill luck it was that S. W. had not the forecast to say 't is certain , too for then he had sav'd his sobriety , and all had been well . Thirdly , conscious to him self that all hitherto was evasion , he would seem at length for fashions sake , as it were , to touch the point ; but seems onely , after his accustomed sleight manner , in these words . Thirdly the place Gal. 1. 17. belongs expressely to the power after it was giv●n , and yet then he depended not on him . Attend Reader here is a dreadfull sentence pronounced against S. Peter's Supremacy ; for if , after it was given , it was no ways dependent on S. Peter , all is lost to S. Peter's Superiority . First I know thou wonderst why , the point being so mainly important , and Dr. H. having found a place of Scripture to prove it from , expressely too , ( as he tells thee ) he should not be larger in it citing those expresse words , and then making invincible arguments from them . To lose his advantage in such circumstances , onely relating hastily the place , then touching it sleightly , and not prosecuting it home , nor indeed at all , but saying onely something there upon , sounds a betraying of his cause , and some preposterous fauour to his therein-befriended Adversary S. W. Secondly , thou mayst observe , that there are here two propositions ; one , that the place Gal. 1. 17. belongs expressely to the power after it was given : the other that yet then he depended not on him . The first is pretended from the Text , and expressely too . The second is left indifferent ( as his blinding manner is ) whether it be proved from the Text , or by his own affirmation ; If the latter , I must put it upon this score of his 'tis certain , and so it needs no further answer ; But , if it be pretended as from Scripture , it shall have audience , and thou shalt hear it examin'd . Thirdly , please to take notice that the Verse Gal. 1. 17. which he brings to testify his tenet expressely , but , by omitting it slubberingly , bids it say nothing , is this , as I find it in their own translation . Neither went I up to Hierusalem to them which were Apostles before me , but I went into Arabia , and returned again unto Damascus . And this is all : where wee hear no news of any power at all , much less expressely belonging to power ; nay more , expressely to the power after it was given , as Mr. H. promised us . Fourthly grant yet all this , that it belong'd expressely to the power after it was given , yet how does this place prove that the power given was not dependent on S. Peter's as an inferiour degree to a superiour , which is the whole question between us ? Nothing is said here but onely that S. Paul preach't in Arabia , &c. ere he went to the Apostles before him . The place there named by him , taken in it self , without relation to the other Verses , expresses nothing of power at all , but onely that S. Paul went to other places ere he went up to Hierusalem ; and , taken with other adjoyning Verses , onely intimates this , that S. Paul , having commission immediatly from Christ , had Authority , to preach to other places without demanding first the other Apostles order , and approbation , which is both granted by us , and innocent to our cause : but whether the power given were lesse , equall , or greater then S. Peter's nothing is found there at all , much lesse doth the 17. Verse it self speak of power , still lesse doth it expressely belong to it ; least of all to power after it was given , as imdependent on S. Peter , as Mr. H. braggs . To make this yet plainer , the Reader may please to advert that there is no Catholick in the world but holds , that , if our Saviour immediatly command a thing he may be obayed without asking counsell , or leave of any Superiour , nay even against their contrary command , or prohibition . Next , that our Saviour not onely could , but did give immediate commands , and Commissions to persons of different ranks ; as to the Apostles , and Disciples to preach to the whole world ; and to Philip the Deacon to goeto convert the Eunuch Acts. 8. v. 26 ▪ 29. These things being so , all shadow of reason in Dr. H's discoursevanishes , which would conclude S. Paul independent and of equall , and not subordinate power with S. Peter , because he had an immediate Commission from Christ , and proceeded to act according to that Commission without going to ask S. Peter's leave first . The Disciples , having immediate order from Christ , preach't the Gospell , without asking leave , or receiving approbation from the Apostles . Were it not , now a worthy inference to parallell Dr. H's and conclude that therefore the Disciples were of equall Authority with the Apostles . But Dr. H. is so wary that he speaks his non-sence , sleightly , sprinklingly , and in brief , that , that lineaments of it not being discovered , the deformity of it may not appear . And this is the most frequent with him of all the rest of his sly ricks , and in a manner naturall to his whole strain of writing . From Dr. H's reason , and Scripture testimonies wee come to fathers to prove that the power given was not inferiour to , or dependent on S. Peter's . He appeals to S. Chrysostome for this point , affirming ( as he layes it out ) of S. Paul distinctly , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not needing Peter nor his voyce , The explication of this place is already given here in the paragraph foregoing , to which adde in particular , that if by voyce he means Commission , and order to preach ; t' is clear he needed it not , having received it immediatly from Christ ; if instruction of doctrine he needed not that neither , having learned it fully and perfectly from Divine revelation ; what follows hence necessarily for equality of power wee see not , and Dr. H. pretends here to prove it by no other argument then onely by telling us within a parenthesis that he supposes it . Both the former interpretations then wee grant each of them fits the words very well , whereas his of equality of power is impossible to bee evinced from this testimony , and inconsistent even with Dr. H's grounds , as shall be shown . It follows , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but being equally honourd ▪ with him ; to which the father addes in a parenthesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I will say no more . Vpon which words Dr. H. exults , which ( saith he ) what it is an intimation of , I leave S. W. to conjecture . Nor is S. W. nice to tell him his thoughts what S. Chrysostome intimated by those words , to wit , that he could have said more with truth , but represt him self as not willing out of reverence to those Apostles to make comparisons of inequality between them ; which manifests plainly that S. Chrysostome in that place speakes not of power at all , or equality in that respect ; since neither was it ever heard of that S. Chrysostome , or any els , no nor the most perverse Protestants held S. Paul above S. Peter in power ; nor can it consist with Dr. H's own grounds , who Answ . p. 43. l. 25. disclaims professedly any such pretence that any of the other Apostles had greater Authority then S. Peter . Thus Dr. H. thinking he had served S. Peter and the Pope a trick , by making S. Chrisostome intimate that S. Paul had greater Authority then he ; hath at once contradicted his own grounds , and quite disanull'd his own best testimonie ; rendring it impossible to relate to power , or Authority , for which he produced it , unlesse the opinion of the whole world , or ( which is firmer and more inviolable ) Dr. H's . own word 's bee a mistake , asserting that no Apostle had greater power then S. Peter . As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equall honour of those two Apostles it hath already been shown formerly from the father's words to signify equall honour for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same efficacity of preaching ; and , in this place , both it , and the not needing S. Peter's voyce , relate onely to the sufficiency of S. Paul's knowledge making S. Peter's instructions needles : as appears by the words a little after , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. not as if S. Paul were to learn any thing of S. Peter , &c. And thus indeed the possibility of S. Chrysostomes saying more of S. Paul , or that he was more honour'd , and higher then S. Peter may have good sense ; many holding that S. Paul was higher in learning , and the greater Divine . They must bee therefore testimonies expressing equality in power of Government which can conclude any thing against our tenet concerning his power ; for , in other things 't is no question but that S. Paul ●ad many advantages above S. Peter ; as , in preaching to more Nations , in writing more Epistles , in greater sufferings , and many other regards , where of some be exprest . 2. Cor. c. 11. Again , this very Verse which Dr. H. would have relate to power after it was given and it's independence on S. Peter , S. Ambrose whose judgment I shallever preferr before Mr. H's interprets in the same sence as wee take it , to wit , of independence in learning onely ; explicating S. Paul's words thus , non fuisse ( dicit ) necessitatem electum se a Deo pergendi ad praedecessores suos Apostolos vt aliquid fortè disceret ab illis quia Deus ei reuelauit perfilium suum quomodo doceret . S. Paul says it was not necessary that he , being chosen by God , should go to the former Apostles that he might learn any thing of them , because God had revealed to him by his son how he should teach . But , because S. Chrysostome hath been pretended as his constant Patron in this particular controversy therefore ( though it cannot be exacted of me who am the Defendant to produce testimonies , and object ) to let the Reader see how unhappy Dr. H. is in the choice of his freinds I shall take liberty to manifest , and , I hope , with evidence from two or three places of that father what S. Chrysostome's opinion was in this point of S. Peter's higher Authority amongst the Apostles . I will not presse here the high titular expressions he gives S. Peter , ( Pan●g . in Pet. & Paul ) how iustly soever I might , of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the leader , or Captain of the Apostles ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; the beginning of the right faith : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : the great pronouncer of sacred things in the Church , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Corypheus , or Head of the Apostles , &c. Nor will I insist much upon my formerly-alledged testimony that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , entrusted with the Sheep-fold , though I might with good reason , the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a collective and denoting an Vniversality . But , My first place ( which I rather make choice of because it relates to S. Iames whom Dr. H. would make clearly Sue periour to S. Peter in his own see ) is taken out of Hom. 87. upon S. John : where , speaking of our Saviours extraordinary affection and familiarity towards S. Peter , he immediately subjoyns this interrogatory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; If this be so how then came Iames to have the Episcopall seat of Hierusalem ? he solves it him self thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , because he ordaind him ( S. Peter ) not Master of that seat , but of the whole world . Here wee see the vast difference between S. Iames and S. Peter's Iurisdictions ; one being Master of that private seat at Hierusalem ; the other , Master of the whole world ; whence follows evidently that neither S. Peter's Iurisdiction is limited by any other bounds then the world it self is , and that he had Iurisdiction also at Hierusalem it self , not after the nature of the particular Bishop there , but of an universall Governour or Master of the world ; unles perhaps Mr. H will alledge that Hierusalem is no part of the world ; for then indeed I shall not know how to reply . Neither let him , as his custome is , run to the Dictionaries , and Lexicons to tell me that the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such a Master as teaches or instructs , and so sounds no Government nor Iurisdiction : for he must know that that is the proper signification of the word as it is found here which the circumstances accompanying it determin it to have . To them then let us look , the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Master is appropriated here to S. Peter in order to the whole world , as it is to S. Iames in order to Hierusalem ; it being exprest but once , and in construction , refer'd to both . Since then , as applyd to S. Iames it signifies his being Bishop of Hierusalem , and so expresses directly Iurisdiction , and power of Government , it is against all reason to say it can possibly signify another thing as apply'd to S. Peter . According to this testimony then S. Peter was universall Bishop of the Church , and of an illimited Iurisdiction . But perhaps Dr. H. will not allow the parenthesis in the testimony I answer I put down the testimony here as I found it in the Greek Context set out by themselves and printed at Eton ; and , though it were left out , the sence it self putt's the opposition between S. Peter's being such over the world , as S. Iames was over Hierusalem , which concerns commanding power , and Iurisdiction . My second place is fech't from his comment on Act. 1. where , speaking of S. Peter's behaviour about the election of a new Apostle he hath these words ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with good reason doth the first ( S. Peter ) undertake the busines with Authority as having them all delivered into his hand . What can this signify , but that he as first , and as a supreme Governour had power over all the rest that were present ; and , who were those who were present ? all the rest of the Apostles , and the chief of the Disciples . In what other manner he as first can be said to have had all the rest within his hand , and therefore with good reason to have taken the management of that busienes authoritatively to himself , I professe I cannot in Dr. H's behalf imagine ; and , am perswaded himself will confess it ( after perusall of the following testimony ) that this was S. Chrysostome's meaning . The Third testimony which shall be also my last ( for I deem it impossible to finde another more expresse for this , or any other point ) is taken from the same place , and spoken upon the same occasion the election of some one to bee Apostles , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . What then ? was it not in Peter's power to elect him ? yes , it was altogether in his power , but he does it not , lest he might seem to do it out of fauour . What can be more expresse and full ? The thing to be performed was an Act of the highest Iurisdiction imaginable amongst the Apostles , to wit , the making a new Apostle . The other Apostles , and chief Disciples were present to the number of one hundred , and twenty ; yet S. Peter had power to do this of himself in their presence Nor is this exprest dubiously by the father , but as a thing certain and beyond all question , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , yes altogether , absolutely , or without doubt . Nor have wee here any divers Lections to diminish the Authority of the words which the Dr. makes a pittifull and little prevailing use of , in his lisping testimonies ; nor is it a word , or two pickt out blindly , and wrested to a quite different interpretation , as is his of discovered Method , but a pithy expression of the full scope , and import of the place . Nor is this perfect expression put alone , but seconded with a note , that he did it not of his own single power , lest he should bee mistaken by others to make such a one , an Apostle out of favour ; which is the frequent , and ordinary carriage of every wise , and prudent Governour . Nor do wee pretend to any higher strain of Iurisdiction in S. Peter then that he could elect a new Apostle by his own power which this father not onely grants , but strenuously assertes ; nor ! in our paralell tenet of the Pope's Authority , can we attribute to him any partic●lar act , more supreme , or more savouring of highest Authority , than to constitute Bishops and Patriarchs in the Church by himself , and of his own particular power . Nor , lastly , was this testimony peep 't out for in strange places but offred me by the same Author whom Dr. H. most relies on , and in the same Treatise which he most frequently cites . Iudge then , Reader , whether it bee likely or no that Dr. H. considering his industrious reading this father and this Treatise ( as he manifests here ) could possibly remain ignorant what was S. Chrysostome's tenet in this point , and then tell me what he deserves who against his own knowledge and conscience alledges imperfectly , mangles , corrupts , and falsifies this fathers words to gain some show of his consent to his paradoxicall point of faith ; nay , makes him , by such leger de main sleights , his chiefest Patron to defend it , as hath been layd open , and discover'd particularly heretofore though he could not but know that no writer extant could be more expressely against it then is this holy and learned father S. Chrysostome . Sect. 13. Dr. H's successe in answering his Adversaries first Testimony . His insincerity in pretending our own law against the Pope's Authority . IN his book of Schism p. 74. Dr. H. told us with Authority and very confidently that certainly S. Paul was noe way subordinate or dependent on S. Peter , at Antioch , as appears by his behaviour towards him avowed Gal. 2. 11. that is , his , withstanding him to the face . Discourteous S. W. who gives not a jott more credit to Mr. H. wher he cries certainly , surely , irrefragably , unquestionably , expressely , distinctly , accordingly , &c. which are the nerves of his discourse , than if he had said nothing at all , would not budge into assent notwithstanding his soe confident assurance to warrant him ; and as for Gal. 2 11. by which he pretended to make it appear , he reply'd Schism Disarm . p. 62. that S. Cyprian , and S. Austin thought otherwise , who interpreted S. Peter's bearing it patiently not as an argumēt of his lesse or equall Authority , but of his greatest humility ; that being higher in dignity he should suffer so mildly the reprehensions of an inferiour . The place alledged from those fathers was this : Quem quamuis primum Dominus elegerit , & super eum aedificaverit Ecclesiam suam , tamen cum secum Paulus disceptauit , non vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit vt diceret se Primatum tenere & obtemperari à nouellu & posteris sibi potius opportere ; nec despexit Paulum quòd Ecclesi●e priùs persecutor fuisset , sed consilium veritatis admisit . Whom though our Lord chose to be the first of the Apostles , and upon him built his Church , yet , when Paul contended with him , he did not challenge , and assume to him self any thing , in any insolent and proud manner , as to say he had the Primacy , and so should rather be obeyed by new , and late Apostles ; nor did he despise Paul because he had formerly been a Persecutor of the Church , but admitted the counsell of truth . Dr. H. preparing to answer this place ( Answ . p. 46. ) notes first that this is the first testimony I have brought from Antiquity ; as if it necessarily belong'd to me who was answering his book , and showing his allegations unable to conclude , to object testimonies also my self , and so bee Opponent and defendent both ; but as it was not my task , so neither do I esteem it so rare a busines to transcribe out of books as needlesly to put my self upon that dull employment ; though I know well that annotation-men , and common● place book souls , think it the rarest thing imaginable . Next , he tells us that he never doubted S. Peter's Primacy in the sence this holy fathers speaks , any more than of Christs building his Church on him , and that he gave me a testimony even now from S. Ambrose which expressely avouched it I remember indeed such a Testimony Answ . 39 in the Margent , but I remember withall that he brought it not , nay would not let it signify S. Peter's Primacy in any sence over the whole Church , but over the Iews onely as appears by the fourlast lines of the same page 39. how ever wee thank him for granting here that he gaves us a testimony from S. Ambrose , which expressely avoued S. Peter's Primacy in any sence over the Church , so he will promise us , not to repent him self , and recall his grant , which he pretends to have so expressely avouched there . But alas ! what faith is to bee given , to the most formall bargain made with such Copes-masters of testimonies ? he had scarce writt eight lines after this profest expresse avouching it but he quite forgets his so solemn promise , and makes the said place in S. Ambrose signify a limited , and contradistinct Primacy saying that by the words of S. Ambrose , S. Paul had a Primacy amongst the Gentiles as Peter amongst the Iews , though the place it self in reference to S. Peter sayes onely that Petrus Primatum acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam , Peter had received the Primacy to found the Church . How necessary an endowment is a good memory to defend a bad cause ! Thirdly he onely denyes ( as he sayes ) that this Primacy gave him any power over S. Paul , and that I will remember he had reason to deny it from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall honour given S. Paul by Chrysostome and Theophylact. I remember indeed the words , but have quite forgot that he had any reason to deduce from those words equality of honor sprung from Government or power of command , having shown from those fathers explicating themselves that it is impossible the words can beare that interpretation . Fourthly , in relation to those words [ he did not vindicate any thing to himself insolently , or assume it arrogantly , as to say he had the Primacy , and rather ought to bee obeyed , &c. ] Dr. H. discant's with this glosse , leaving us ( saith he p. 47. ) to resolve that if he had claimed any obedience at all from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him . Thus he : soe that the difference between Dr. H. and mee in explicating this place stands thus ; that he makes those words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assump sit to signify that S. Peter's praise worthines exprest consisted in his not chalenging what did not truly belong to him ; whereas , I make it consist in his not chalenging it in those circumstances , though it truly belonged to him ; he would have the words insolenter and arroganter so taken as if the pride they denoted did involve falsehood , injustice , or overweening ; whereas I contend that they signify onely in an insolent and proud manner , well exprest in our English phrase , by standing upon his point , which well consists with the truth of what he challenges and the right of what he assumes . Ere I descend to manifest that this is the sence of that place , I desire the Reader to review the entire testimony , in which he will do right both to my discourse , and his own memory ; and , when he hath done this , I offer him for his satisfaction these following notes . First that it had been no such great commendation of humility to say that S. Peter did not usurpingly challenge what was not his right ; but rather an impudence , and an absurd haughtines to have done it ; since then the fathers intend here a particular commendation of S. Peter's modesty , it must consist in this that though he might with rigour of right have stood upon his tip-toes ( as wee may say ) yet his goodnes so moderated his height that he was content with mildenes to bear an inferiour's reprehensions ; in which great vertue is shown , and , which being put , those fathers suppose that truly he was Superiour . Secondly , unles this bee the meaning of that place , wee have quite lost the adversative sence which yet is unavoidable ; for what sence is this , Though our Lord chose him to be the first , yet he did not challenge to himself more then belongs to him ; or what speciall commendation do these words import ; Though King Iames , was King of England yet he did not challenge , or assume to himself to bee Emperour of Germany ? sure it must bee an enuy of S. Peter's sanctity as well , as of his dignity to diminish his praise-worthines intended here by so frivolous and incoherent an explication . Thirdly , the words , non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter , he challenged not any thing insolently to himself , make good my explication ; for , it had been a very hard case if he could have challenged nothing at all to himself with truth according to these fathers ; no not even that which themselves had granted , the line before , to wit , that our Lord had chosen him to bee the first , and had built his Church upon him ; with truth therefore he might have challenged that , which out of modesty he stood not insolenty and arrogantly upon . Fourthly Dr. H. grants that a Primacy at least in some sence is granted S. Peter from this place : wherefore the redditive part of the testimony ; yet he challenged not any thing , &c. so as to say , he had the Primacy , must be granted to bee true also , or rather it is the self same . Neither is it possible that any man not totally possest by prejudice can imagine any other , but that in these words . Though our Lord chose him to bee the first , yet he said not , or alledged not that he had the Primacy , or was the first , the latter part should be false unles the former were so too . Firfthly , this being so , the following words in the reddi●ive part of the testimony and ought rather to be obey'd by la●er Apostles , &c. must necessarily bee true too , since they follow in the same tenour of redditive sence to the adversative , and are joyned immediately by a copulative particle to the former of having the Primacy . True therefore it is that he might in right expect obedience in other circumstances from S. Paul ; and by consequence this Primacy here spoken of was not a dry and barren one as the Dr. would fancy it . Sixthly the subsequent words of his not objecting to S. Paul that he had been a persecutour of the Church , make it yet more evident ; since he might with truth have said so , but of his goodnes would not ; since then the foregoing word 's of his having the Primacy are true , and the following ones also of S. Paul's having been a persecutour are true also , upon what grounds can this Adversary of S Peter's imagine that the midle words importing his rather right to S. Paul's obedience which run on in the same even tenour with both the other should be false ? or how could he ●hink to evade by deducing from those words that the fathers left us to resolve hence , that if hee had claimed any obedience from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him ; nay making this the summe of his answer to that place . Lastly the concluding words , [ but admitted the counsell of truth ] expressing the result of the whole busines , show that i● plainly imports an Encomium of S. Peter's candour ; that whē the thing objected against him was true , he maintained not his own saying by Authority , but made his he●g●h of dignity , exprest there to bee most eminent , stoop to the sincere acceptation of truth ; which in a Superiour and Governour is a most laudable carriage , and an unparalell'd commendation . And thus Dr. H. comes of in answering S. W. first testimony ; which being prest speaks more against him then was at first intended , being onely brought to show that these fathers thought that manner of carriage between S. Peter and S. Paul exprest Gal. 11. rather argued S. Peter's greater humility then his lesser , or equall Authority . After Mr. H. had endeavoured by wresting the former testimony to win S. Cyprian , and S. Austin to side with him against S. Peter's Authority he proceeds to destroy the Popes Authority in that Apostles , even from domestick testimonies also : His own canon law approved publickly by himself as legitimate shall secretly by Dr. H's inspiration play the Traitour , and under mine now in these latter dayes the said Authority which till now every one took it to confirme . A strange attempt , if Mr. H's strength were equall to his courage . The place is cited in the Decret . out of the 2. Epist . of Pope Anacletus , which makes it yet more home and terrible against the now adays-Popes , it begins thus : Post Christum a Petro sacerdotalis coepit ordo , After Christ the sacerdotall order began from Peter and soe goes on in other expressions of that strain soe far from prejudiciall that they are very favorable ; and as for these first words , if wee look into the Epistle it self , it makes S. Peter the same in order to Christian Hierarchy , as Aaron was to the Leuiticall , which wee account no small honour . He addes ( saith Dr. H. ) that the Apostles , ipsum Principem eorum esse voluerunt , would have him to bee their Prince ; that is , consented he should bee such ; To which words Dr. H. subjoyns in a parenthesis ( where he read this I know not ) Thus Dr H. takes liberty to talk ridiculously , yet should I smile at him a little he would excommunicate me again in Greek , and his friends would be displeased . Anacletus lived in the Apostles dayes , and ( as he tell 's us in the said Epistle ) was ordained by S. Peter himself , yet Dr. H. finds fault with this his assertion because he knows not where he read it . Christ , and his Apostles came not with books in their hands , but with words in their mouths , to teach the world their doctrine . Therefore Dr. H. should rather have scrupled where he had heard it , then where he had read it , and put the force of his exception there ; and then wee could have told him there was none in those dayes for him to hear but onely either Christ or his Apostles and Disciples ; neither can wee doubt of his immediate conversation with them , who was ( as the same Epistle expresses ) ordained by S. Peter himself . These preambulatory expressions favouring soe much our cause would make one think that the same Author could not bee so forgetfull , as to undo vtterly the same Authority in the self same Epistle , nay in the next line , after he had calld S. Peter , Prince of the Apostles ; nor that Anacletus was such a Courtier as to speak those former kinde words onely for complement sake , and afterwards when it came to the point , immediately deny all : yet Dr. H. expresses him here as speaking first on the one side , then on the other ; and that when on the one side he had given us the former favorable word 's , the false tokens it seems of otherwise-meant friendship , presently ( like Margery's good cow which gave a good meal , and when she had done kick't it down with her foot ) on the other side , as Mr. H. tells us , with equal clearnes he prevaricates from what he had pretended , and over-throws S. Peter's supremacy quite . The clear words ( as he calls them ) are these , caeteri verò Apostoli cum eodem pari consortio honorem , & potestatem acceperunt . But the other Apostles in like consortship received honour and power with him . Which he never explicates , nor applies ( as his sleighting custome is ) but puts them onely down and then triumphs upon them , as if they could not possibly bear any other interpretation . Whereas , I make account every good Catholick may grant these words without any difficulty , and that they make nothing at all against us . For , to say that the other Apostles received pari consortio honorem , &c. in like consortship honour , and power , does not infer that they received parem honorem & potestatem equall honour , and power , but that as he had received it from Christ , so they pari consortio , likewise , or in like manner as being his fellows received it to . Again our tenet granting to each universall Iurisdiction all over the world , grants likewise that each precisely under the notion of Apostle , that is , of one sent to preach Christs faith , had a like consortship of honour and power ; each of them being dignify'd with an unlimited Apostleship , and Iurisdiction or power to preach ; but , speaking of the Apostolicall Colledge as a community and soe requiring order of Government , wee affirm with S. Hierome that S. Peter was supreme in that respect , nor is there any thing to the contrary found in this place . Again , the words cum eodem appear by their placing to be better joynd with acceperunt , then with pari ; for then they should rather have been put after it , paricum eodem , &c. and soe the whole place imports thus much , that though our saviour chose S. Peter to be first yet the rest of the Apostles acceperunt cum eodem received with him that is , at the same time he received it , in like consortship ( that is , of Apostleship ( honour and power ; which was verified , when he in a common indifferent expression after his Resurrection gave them their last and unlimited Apostolicall mission , euntes in vniuersum mundum praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae . Going into the whole world preach the Gospell to every creature . By this it appears that the place may have another meaning than that which Mr. H. fancies ; now that it must have another , none but Anacletus him self in the same Epistle shall certifie us ; who manifests himself as plain a Papist in this point of the Pope's supremacy as either the Cath. Gent. or S. W. Putting down there the orderly ascent of Ecclesiasticall judicatures after that of Bishops being to be judged by their Metropolitans he rises higher to that of Primates and still higher to that of the Apostolicall seat or the Pope's in these words . Primates tamen ( vt praefixum est ) & tunc , & nunc habere iussae sunt , ad quos post sedem Apostol cam summa negotia conueniant , yet the Cities are order'd to have their Primates , to whom the chief busienesses ( after the Apostolicall seat ) may come . And a little after , Episcoporumque causae , & summorum negociorum iudiciae ( Saluà Apostolicae sedis authoritate ) iustissimè terminentur . And let the causes of Bishops , and the judgments of the highest matters bee most , justly decided by them , the Authority of the Apostolicall seat remaining unprejudic'd . By these two places wee may take an estimate of Dr. H. solidnes , and sincerity , who catches at the shadow of a word , or two , pari consortio , in like consortship , so waxen natur'd that they are easily capable of a diverse shap't signification ; and thence argues ad hominem , against us that our own Authors , and our canon law , are clearly opposite to our doctrine ; whereas he could not but know , and see in the very same place that there was noe testimony imaginable , more expressely for us , or more prejudiciable to him then the said Epistle if wee look after the meaning of the Author in the entire import of it , and not what the many-senc'd or rather indeed the noe senc'd Dictionary interpretation of two single words give them a possibility to signify . Neither let Mr. H. think to excuse him self that he argues ad hominem in alledging these words , and soe it imports not his cause at all what the Epistle it self ▪ sayes , since he builds not upon it himself , nor allows it's Authority ; for still , as long as 't is shown that he imposes upon that Epistle and it's Author a sence which he knew they never intended he can never avoyd the note of insincerity ; and by how much the thing it self is more unlikely , that the Authoritie wee alledge for us should be clearly against us ( as he sayes ) or the fell same Epistle contradict it self ; by soe much 't is a far more shamefull rashnes , and an affected precipitation in him to pretend it , and object it , unles upon most evident and unavoidable grounds . Sect. 14. Dr. H's trick to evade bringing some Testimony to confirm his own , Wee know . His two-edg'd argument to conclu●e against S. Peter's supermacy both from Exclusivenes and not Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction . IN the beginning of his fifth Section Dr. H. who was soe rarely skillfull in the art of memory as to contradict himself neere a dozen times in one point ( as hath been shown , Part. 2. Sect. 4. ) is now on a suddain become Master of it , and undertakes to teach'it S. W. whose memory ( alas as hee sayes is frail . ) But ere my Master gives me my lesson he reprehends me first very sharply for my ill memory , calling it my predominant fault , and that railing is but my blind to keep it from being descry'd ; nay moreover , this modest man who falsifies , or corrupts every thing he medles with , is angry with me that I doe not blush . Expect ( Reader ) some great advantage gain'd against mee which can move this Preacher of patience to this passion , who in the beginning of his book soe like a saint profess'd his readines to turn the other cheak to him who should strike him on the right . To avoid mistakes on my part , and cauills on mine Adversaries I shall put down both our words , and appeal to the Readers eyes His were these of Schism p. 74 Thus wee know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted the Iews and S. Paul the Gentiles . And what it was which Dr. H. ( in the plurall number [ Wee ] as became his Authority , ) knew to be thus , he exprest in the immediatly foregoing words , to wit , that whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same Citie , 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 bee govern'd by some Bishop of his assignation , and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles . This is that ( Reader ) which Dr. H. knew to have b●en thus at Antioch ; This is also the place Reply p. 57. when all els fail'd him , he stood to as a sufficient expression of his exclusive tenet of those Apostles Iurisdictions . Now my words Schism Disarm p. 62. upon his [ Thus wee knew it was at Antioch , &c ] were these . That his first testimony was his own knowledge Thus wee know , &c. but that he put down no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one , of his [ wee know ] which yet had been requisite , that wee might have known it too . And this was all . What railing words the Dr. find's here which should make him complain so hainously , I know not , unles it were that I calld the testimony of his own knowledg , weak ; and indeed if this be railing , despaire of learning more courtesie till Dr. H. by growing wiser teach me it . But my predominant fault of an ill and frail memory for which shame must make change colour is this , that I said he put no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one , of his : Wee know , yet afterwards set down two testimonies of that , of which I lately , denyed any . If hee means such things as he produced for testimonies , I set down indeed the very next Section not onely two , but ten of them : But , if he means such testimonies as I exprest my self to deny there , that is , such as did confirm his own Thus wee know I am soe far from blushing at it , that I still make him this bold profer , that , if amongst all the following testimonies there be found any one word confirming his own Thus wee know , and what it relates to , that is , making S. Peter's Authority exclusive to the Iews , and S. Paul's to the Gentiles when they met at the same City but what himself adds of his own head I will yeld him the whole controversy . Nor let him tell me what he fancies to bee deduced thence , but what the testimonies themselv's expresse ; the deductions are his , the words onely are the testimonies : let him show me any one exclusive word in any one testimony , and I professe before all the world that I will not onely pardon him the impertinency of the rest , but alsoe grant him all . Iudge now Protestant Reader , who hath most cause to blush : examine well if ever thou heardst such a challenge made to any writer yet extant , and not accepted of ; and then see to what a trifler thou trustest for thy salvation ; who in steed of replying to the purpose , and showing thee those exclusive words , tells his Adversary that it is a predominant fault in him to chalenge him that he had never a testimony to confirm his own : Wee know ; and then , seing himself unable to show any , thinks to evade by telling his challenger , he ought to blush for his frail memory ; whereas he should rather have blam'd him for his bad understanding , and bad eyes , neither apprehending nor seeing a word in any testimony to that purpose . In answer to his pretended testimonies I noted ( Schism Disarm . p. 63. ) that they affirmed no more but the founding the Church of Antioch by Peter , and Paul , which might be done by their promiscuous endeavours without distinction much lesse exclusion of Authority and Iurisdiction . Dr. H. answers here ; 't is true , this was possible , and if it had been true had manifestly prejudged S. Peter's singular Iurisdiction and clearly joynd Paul socially with him . It is impossible to gett a positive word of sence from this man , first , he will never willingly use the common words which expresse the question between us , as chief in Authority amongst the Apostles , their Head , Prince , &c. but , as before he used the ambiguous phrase of S. Peter's having noe singular supremacy at Hierusalem , soe now he recurr's to singular Iurisdiction at Antioch ; which being doublesenc'd if wee take it in one , he will be sure to evade hereafter by taking it in another . Secondly , let us suppose him to mean honestly , that is to intend by it , that S. Peter was not higher in Authority of Government than S. Paul , as the question determines it , let us observe how this quodlibeticall reasoner argues : his whole intent was to conclude against S. Peter's 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 , t●e●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 An●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 unparell●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 Iew●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 Samaritans , and from the Disciples marvelling that he talked with the woman . What means this Dr. by this instance ? The question is of Gentiles ; the Samaritans were not perfectly such , nor yet perfect aliens from Moses his law but rather as obstinate Schismaticks and Hereticks from it , whose conversation by consequence they deem'd more contagious than that of pure heathens ; who , agreeing in no common principles or point with true beleevers , were therefore lesse likely to decieve them with false glosses . Ibid. His second assertion superadds to the former that the preaching to a Gentile was to the Iews as unlawfull as the eating any unclean meat . This he proves from S. Peter's vision , where one is represented by the other ; Act. 10. and that without that vision he durst not have come to one of another nation , and that it was unlawfull for a Iew to doe so ; as is exprest v. 28. all Communion is interdicted the Iewish & Gentile Church at Antioch , hence it is against the Iudaicall law to converse with them , or preach to Gentiles . hence lastly the Catholike Gentlemanis unhappy continually in his objections . See here , Reader , a patern of the Protestant manner of writing in Dr. H's , which is to lay the whole force of their proof upon any harsh-sounding Text & something difficult to explicate , though they know in their consciences that there are an hundred nay a thousand other Texts expresly against their pretence from that one . Two things then I offer in answer to this objection ; the one , that it is the most absurd position that ever blurr'd paper to affirm that the Iews were forbidden by the Iudaicall law to conuerse with or teach a Gentile . Next that , had it been so , it had neither prejudiced us , nor availed Dr. H. in order to these circumstances at Antioch . As for the first , there is scarce any one point imaginable so frequently contradicted in Scripture as is this assertion of Mr. H's . For , to begin with the law it self , Leuit. 22. 10. There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing , a sojourner of the Preists , or an hired servant shall not eat of the holy thing , where we see supposed that strangers , sojourners and hired servants , which might not eat the passover , that is , who were Gentiles , might live amongst the Iews . And in the 12. v. a much more difficult point is supposed , tow it , of a Priests daughter marryed to a stranger . Again , 1. Kings 8. 41. 42. 43 Salomon prayes that all the people of the earth may hear God's name , and that God would heare that prayer of the stranger who cometh out of a farre countrey to the house at Hierusalem . So farre were they from abhorring to convert & converse with Gentiles as they expresse themselves zealous of both . Now as for examples of their conversing with Gentiles there are so many of them recorded in holy writ , that I know not where to begin to recount them . Spies sent by Iosvah were designed to do it , Rachab the harlot , & her fathers house were saved & lived with the Iews after they had taken Iericho , particularly it is expressed by the sacred writer that she or herposteritie lived in Israël even to the time he writ Iosh. 6. 25. Elias conversed nay lived in the house with the widow of Sarepta , Elizeus with Naaman the Syrian ; Dauid lived with Achis ; Salomon conversed & made a league with Hiram , 1. Kings . 5. 12. the Machabees legates conversed with the Romans , and the spartiatae & themselves made a league with them without ever scrupling at it , though they chose rather to die then eat wines flesh forbidden by the law , which manifests that conversing with Gentiles was not equally ( as Mr. H. affirms ) forbidden by the same law as the eating unclean meats . The Iews conversed with Gentiles in captiuity , neither do we hear of any expression of abhominating their civil societie with them . Or that they broke Moses his law in so doing , or any one put to death upon that score . Our saviour expresses of the Pharisees that they did circuire terras & Maria , goe about Sea & land to make one Proselyte , which was impossible to be done without both conversation & preaching . Innumerable other examples might be gather'd out of Scripture of their conversing with Gentiles , by one who thought so manifest a point worth further clearing ; and consequently I cannot think that this Folio-annotation Bible man could possibly be ignorant , but that the contrary to this euading assertion of his built upon one wilfully misunderstood place , was most evident in Scripture . Nor was onely Moses his law & the whole stream of Scripture-instances opposite to this new tenet of his , but the position it self is absolutely implicatory , supposing the lawfulnes to make a Proselyte ; for , how could a Gentile possibly come to be of the Iewish law without the conversation & instruction of some Iew. In a word , Dauid commanded together the strangers in the land of Israël , 1. Chron. 22. 2. and , they were found , when Salomon numbered them afterwards , to amount to one hundred fify three thousand six hundred 2. Chron 2. 17. and those able men fit to work , as appeares by v. 18. that is there were one hundred fiftie three thousand , six hundred strangers , besides male-infants , boyes , very old men , & the whole female sex , which in likelihood were as many as the men . Let us then put them in all , as we can in reason iudge no lesse to amount to three hundred thousand . Now , is it possible that any but a mad man should imagin that either there were none amongst this vast number Gentiles still , since none was forced to be a Proselyte , nor ( as far as I ever read ) turned out of the countrey because he would not become of the Iewish law ; can any imagin there were none amongst this numerous multitude as yet a cathecumenus ( as we may say ) and learning his duty when he should become a Iew ? or , grant them all to be Proselytes and of Moses his law already , yet , can any man without having great title to Bedlam think that three hundred thousand Gentiles were converted to Moses his law & became Proselytes without any Iews very frequently both conversing with them & instructing them ; or lastly , that ( considering how strict the Iews were in observing the law of Moses ) this so frequent-conversation & instruction equally unlawfull according to Dr. H. as eating any unclean diet , could have been used , & yet then no conscience made of it that ever we heard of ; no prohibition of that unlawfull custome , no banishing the Gentiles from amongst them ; but rather making their countrey a rendevous for all to come that would ; no reprehension , no animadversion , stoning &c. used towards the practisers of this conversation with & conversion of the Gentiles ; but it must be imagin'd that Moses his law was publikely and frequently , & yet calmly & quietly broken ; and that , in Dauids reign & the beginning of Salomons , the purest times of the Iewish Church , rather than a Protestant Minister , one Dr. H. should fail in vindicating his unparalleld absurdity , that the Iews at Antioch had no Communion at all , no not even civill conversation with the Gentiles their fellow-Christians , because they were forbidden to do it by the Iudaicall law , of which they were zealous . Thus much for Dr. H's absurdity of absurdities that it was forbidden by Moses his law that the Iews should either civilly converse with or charitably endeavour to convert a Gentile . Now , put the case it had been thus forbidden , & thus unlawfull , what likelyhood was there that the apprehension of that unlawfulnes should still remain at the time we speak of , so as to make the Iewish Christians abhor still all conversation with the Gentile ones at Antioch . For this vision of S. Peter's , directing his endeavours to preach to the Gentiles could not but be universally known both by the occasionall relating it , of which there was great necessity by reason of the scandall which that nouelty caused at first , as also by it's effects , the conversion of multitudes of Gentiles which ensved thereupon . Grant then that the action was accounted scandalous to all that heard it , & that this vision of S. Peter's iustify'd it , & him for doing it , it cannot be imagind but that this relation of his vision was spread far & near amongst the Iews with whom he conversed , specially Dr. H. granting that when S. Paul met him not he preacht both to Iews & Gentiles , he was obliged to publish the said vision as a warrātable excuse of his and the other Apostles frequently preaching to the latter . Again , we read that those that were scandalized at S. Peter's conversing with the Gentiles Act. 11. after he had cleared himself , & related his vision exprest their full satisfaction by holding their peace & glorifying God for it v. 18. Now then I argue , either the Iews at Antioch were in like disposition of minde to be scandalized , seeing S. Peter converse with Gentiles there , Gal. 2. or not : if not , then there is no ground why Mr. H. should thinke that the Iewish Christians there held it unlawfull to converse with the Gentile ones ; if they held it unlawfull , then I ask again upon what groūds can Dr. H. think that S. Peter should not ( as he was obliged ) endeavour to satisfy them that it was God's will by declaring his vision to them also aswell as he did to the Iews at Hierusalem Act. 11. Or why he should conceit that the Iews at Antioch were so incomparably more unreasonable than the others , that whereas those at Hierusalem , though at first so hott as to contend with S. Peter about it Act. 11 v. 2. yet remaind so perfectly satisfied by S. Peter's discourse as to glorifie God. v. 18. those at Antioch should persist still obstinate & unsatisfied , & not give any credit at all to their Apostle and according to Mr. H. their onely Governour , S. Peter . Moreover , ere this contest happen'd at Antioch about eating the Gentile diet , it was no new matter , which is that which causes scandall , but a publike & known thing that the Gentiles were convers't with & preach't too , Act. 11. v. 1. we read that the Apostles & Brethren which were in Iudea heard of it , v. 20. that some who were of Cyprus and Greece preached to the Grecians in Antioch , v. 22. that when the Church at Hierusalem heard of it , they sent Barnabas ( to them ) to Antioch for the same end : So that see how the Church of the Iews further'd & promoted the preaching to the Gentiles , so far were they from being now scandalized at it . After that , Barnabas brought Paul also thither , & they preach't there one whole year , v. 26. and more particularly to the Gentiles , as Dr. H. grants , at least promiscuously none ever deny'd ; nor did this year onely intervene ( sufficient time to let the Iews in the same city know that the Gentiles might be convers'd with & preach't to ) but many more ere the controversy about the Gentile diet happen'd , as may easily be gather'd from the 2. chapter to the Gal : it being exprest there to have been fowerteen years at least after S. Paul's conversion , which is related , Act. 9. immediately before the conversion of Cornelius , Act. 10. Now , as for other particulars Philip had preached to the Eunuch a Gentile . Act. 8. 35. and in Samatia , Act. 8. 5. and in the same Chapter v. 25. S. Peter also with him preacht the Gospell in many villages of the Samarians . Yet Dr. H after all this publike preaching to Gentiles & Samaritans , avowed to be lawfull by the so long & frequent practice & doctrine of the chiefest Apostles & pillars of Christianitie , and ( which is worth noting ) most solemnly & openly profest & exercised at Antioch in particular , will yet after all this have the Iewish Christians in Antioch ignorant that it was lawfull to converse with or preach to a Gentile ; And all this , because rather then he will yeeld to the plainest truth , there is no paradox so absurd , so non-sensicall & contradictory , but he thinks it worth his patronage , so it yeelds him the mutuall succour of any sorry evasion , when he is taken in a falsification or some other unavoidable weaknes . But , though nothing else could bridle Dr. H. from such extravagancy of insincerity & weaknes , yet , I wonder much his own words could not curb him , & make him if he needs would run the Maze , to do it at least with in his owne lists . His owne words which occasion●d this debate , of Schism p. 75 are these , we read of S. Peter & the Iewish Proselytes , Gal 2. 11. that they withdrew from all Communion & Society with the Gentile Christians . Now , if they withdrew from all Communion & Society , I suppose they had & used formerly both Communion & Society with them ; else , how could they be said to withdraw from it ; yet this Patron of Protestantism from whom 't is impossible to get a word of sence or sincerity , but perpetually he both corrupts other mens sayings & contradicts his own , will have them never to have had at all , that from which he tells us they withdrew ; since they were equally zealous of Moses his law , before as after the breach , by which law he assures us it was forbidden so much as to converse with a Gentile . Lastly , is it possible that passion should inveigle any man of reason to such a strange conceit , as to imagin that , each party being Christians , they should avoid even courteous or civill commerce one with another : or , that the Apostles would have countenanced by their compliance such an uncharitable carriage ? But is this all ? let us see between whom this all-Communion was broke ; between two Churches ; and by whom ? by S. Peter & his Iewish Proselytes : Now , since Schism is formally & point blank counterpos'd to Vnion & Communion between Churches , if all-Communion be broke between those Churches , it is a perfect contradiction in terms , to say there is not a Schism made between them : And , since it was S. Peter & his Iewish Proselytes who behaved themselves actively in this point , it follows by most absolute & necessary consequence , that they must be all Schismaticks , and Blessed S. Peter their Ringleader . But 't is no matter with him ; rather shall S. Peter instead of being Head of the Church , be an Head of Schismaticks , than Dr. H. be acknowledged a Schismatick & a falsifier : and , not onely the Authority but also the Sanctity of that holy Apostle be sacrific'd to the Protestant interest , rather than so great a Patron of theirs , and so saintly a falsifier shall want an evasion to soder his crack't credit . Neither let Dr. H. think to escape making S. Peter & his Iewish converts Schismaticks by saying that this was a prudent managery onely ( Rep. p. 62. ) & so iustifiable by the present circumstances ; since it is most undeniable that the breaking of all Communion with another Church is the extern Act of Schism ; & then , let him remember his own grounds layd against himself in his first Chapter of Schism p. 10. that the matter of fact onely is to be considered not the causes or motives . Since eo ipso that fact is Schism , nor can be iustifi'd from being such by any causes , motives , or circumstances what-soever ; Now then , since the fact of breaking from all-Communion which the Gentile Church , that is of Schism from it is in expresse terms imputed to S. Peter & his Iewish Proselytes by Dr. H. I expect then what possible motive this Author can pretend to alledge sufficient to excuse them from Schism , whose doctrine it is in the place cited that no motive or reason was sufficient to render matter of fact of this nature excusable or iustify it from being Schism , nay damnable , worse then sacriledge , Idolatry , &c. as the fathers there cited by D H. avouch . The summe then of this part of Dr. H's defence is , that he takes no notice at all of his falsifying by adding the onely important & large-senc't word All to the Scripture , nor attempts to clear himself of it ; but , instead of doing this , he goes about to maintain his position counterfeited to be found there to wit , that Iewish Christians withdrew from all-Communion with the Gentile ones , by this argument that it was equally forbidden by Moses his law to converse with or preach to a Gentile , as to eate their diet . A paradox so incomparably & notoriously absurd , that it is at once both perfectly opposite to the law it self , repugnant to innumerable examples from Scripture to the contrary , & the universall practice of the Synagogue ; injurious to the Iewish Church in it's purest times , making them frequently , publikely & uncontrolledly break the law in a point ( as he saies ) equally forbidden as eating the Gentile diet ; implicatory in terms , supposing once the lawfulnes of making a Proselyte ; impertinent to his present purpose & circumstances were it granted ; expressely contradictory to his own words , about which the present contest was raised ; derogating from those ancient Primitive Christians all charity , nay even in the least and sleightest degree ; and lastly , beyond all evasion , making them perfectly Schismaticks & S. Peter their Ring-leader ; and that , proceeding on Dr. H's own grounds . Nor hath he any thing to counterpo●ze this heap of absurdities of the Seuenteens , but onely a misunderstood place of Scripture , of which himself must be the Interpreter ; which is the right Protestant Method , who build their faith upon any Text which seems at first sight to make for them or is hard to explicate ; although universall Tradition of the foregoing Church , importing , involving & bringing downe to us all imaginable motives of the contrary truth evidence that Interpretation to be impossible . But 't is no matter what Dr. H. does or sayes ; if he can but talk any thing gentilely & sleightly , the grave negligence must supply the want of sence & Truth ; especially if hee but shut upwith a victorious Epiphonema , pronounced with a serious-sobersadnes ( Repl p. 61. l. vlt. ) Thus unhappy is this gentleman continually in his objections , all is well , and his sleight-sould Sermon-admi●ers take that to be the rarest Nectar of reason , which , if examin'd is the most sublimated quintessence of contradiction-absurdity , as hath amply been shown . Now as for S. Peter's words that it was unlawfull for a man that was a Iew to keep company or come to one that is of ther Nation , upon which onely he build his position , otherwise altogether destitute of any shadow of proof . I answer , that the Scribes & such like pretenders to a preciser Kinde of holines , had lately introduced many customes of their owne forging , under the notion of Traditions ( of some of which they are accused by our saviour ) and obtruded them upon the consciences of the Iews to be religiously observed ; especially at Hierusalem the Rendevous of Iewish Doctors , and the place where their doctrine had more immediate influence upon the mindes of of thei Auditors . Of those precise customes this was one , of not going to a Gentiles house , or conversing with them . To this , amongst others , S. Peter was inured by long education , in so much that though he heard our B. Saviour with his own mouth give them commission to go to preach all over the world , in vniuersum mundum and omni creaturae , to every creature ; yet , finding employment enough amongst those of the Circumcision , he never attempted it till by a vision he was immediately set upon it by Almighty God , especially the obligation to his country laying a stronger ty upon him , and having received order to preach first to the Iews untill they shew'd themselves unworthy , he needed a vision to tell him when that time came , & circumstances were ripe for it . In like manner we read that S. Paul , though chosen particularly to preach to the Gentiles , Act. 9. 15. yet he affirmed , Act. 13 46. that it was necessary that the words of God should first have been spoken to the Iews , & did not turn to the Gentiles but upon their rejecting him . By unlawfull then in this place I take not to bee mean't , not against the law of Moses ; but , what their Teachers and Doctors , who govern'd their Consciences , bore them in hand was unlawfull : in the same manner as wee now call many things unlawfull , which are not found forbidden by Christ's law , but which our Doctours and Casuists iudge to bee unlawfull . Again , wee read that though the Apostles and Brethren that were in Iudea had heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God. Act. 11. v. 1. yet the second verse let ts us know of none that found fault with him save those at Hierusalem onely ; and that , not meerly upon the account of going to the houses of Gentiles , but of eating with them also , as the third verse expresses . But let their zeal have been never so hot to maintain this new-fangled apprehension , and let it bee never so universall to abhorre the conversation of Gentiles , whiles they remain'd Gentiles ; yet , it is the strangest fancy that ever entred into a rational head , to imagin that they should still retain the same uncharitable feud towards them after they were become Christians and their fellow-Brothers in him , in whom they were taught there was no distinction of Iew nor Gentile . Which sounds a far greater absurdity in a Christian eare , than to say that they likewise abhorr'd still the conversation of the Proselytes to the law of Moses after their conversion ; & that those one hundred fifty three thousand workmen who lived dispersed among the Iews in Salomon's time , neither converst with their neighbour Iews , nor took directions how to order their labour towards the building of Salomon's Temple , but did their work by instinct and the guidance of the private Spirit , as Dr. H. interprets Scripture . Sectio 16. How Dr. H. omitts to clear himself of falsifying the Apostolicall Constitutions , and to take notice of all the Exceptions brought against that Testimony in Schism Disarm'd . His acute manner of arguing . As also how hee brings a Testimony against him in every particular to make good all his former proofs ; and by what art hee makes it speak for him . THe next Testimony of Mr. H's which comes under examination , is taken from the writer of the Apostolicall Constitutions , who tells us ( according to Dr. H. of Schism , p. 75. ) that Evod●us & Ignatius at the same time sate Bishops at Antioch , one succeeding S. Peter the other S. Paul , one in the Iew●sh , the other in the Gentile Congregation . Now if that writer tells us no such thing , no not a word of this long rabble , is it possible Dr. H. can deny himself to be a manifest & wilfull falsifier ? Schism Disarm'd challeng'd him upon this occasion of a manifest falsification ; and that that writer neither tells us ( as Dr. H. pretended ) that they sate at the same time Bishops in whichwords consists the greatest force of the Testimony : nor that they succeeded the Apostles , with that distinction ; nor that the Iewish & Gentile Congregations were distinct , much lesse that those Apostles Iurisdictions at Antioch were mutually limitted , which indeed onely concern'd his purpose ; but onely that they were ordained by the Apostles , The text being onely this Antiochiae Euodius ordinatus est a me Petro , Ignatius a Paulo : At Antioch Euodius was ordained by me Peter , Ignatius by Paul , without the least word before or after concerning that matter ; Of all these falsifications & voluntary additions Schism Disarm'd p. 65. 66. challenged Mr. H. yet , in return he offers not one word to clear himself Reply c. 4. Sect 7. the place whither ( Answ . p. 48. l. 31. 32. ) hee r●ferd mee for answer to this point ; nor to shew us that that writer tells us what he so largely promist us ; of Schism p. 75. onely in his Answer p. 48. he assures us that in his Reply , the whole matter of Euodius & Ignatius is further cleared ( as if he had cleared it already ) and S. W' s elaborate misunderstandings forestall'd ; he should have said misreadings , for it was mine eyes & not mine understanding which fail'd me , if he had not added to this testimony all which made for his purpose . Foure observations I shall recomend the Reader to let him see that this insincerity in Dr. H. was affected & voluntary . First , the words in the testmony importing their Ordination , neither make against us nor touch our controversy . Next , all the words added of his own head are made use of by him , & solely-important in this occasion . Thirdly , that he never particulariz'd the place in the Author where this testimony was to be found , which he ordinarily vses , but leaves us to look for it in a whole book , hoping we might either be weary in looking it , or misse , & so● himself in the mean time escape scot-free . Lastly , he so iumbles together the two different letters ( as his comon trick is ) that no man living can make any ghesse which words are the testimonies , which his own ; and , should we pitch upon any to be the testimonies , relying upon the translation letter , in that part they sate at the same time Bishops , we finde the most considerable word same put in a lesse letter , as if it were part of the citation , whereas no such word nor any thing to that sence was found in the Author . And thus Dr. H. ( as he professes Answ . p. 18. speaks the full truth of God. But instead of clearing himself from being an arrant falsifier , Dr. H. ( as his custome is ) attempts to sh●w himself an acute Doctour ; and when it was his turn to sh●w us the pretended words in his testimony , he recurs to the defence of the position it self . And first he cries quits which the Catholike Gentleman who , as he tells us in a drie phrase ( Repl. Sect. 7. num . 1. ) casts one stone at all his buildings together . And what stone is this ? He challenged him not to have brought one word out of Antiquity to prove the with drawing from all Communion ( already spoken of ) to have been the cause of the division of the Bishopriks in Antioch & Rome . This is the Catholike Gentleman's stone , as he calls it , which levell'd by him at such an impenetrable Rock of solid reason as Mr. H. rebounds upon the thrower's head with this violence . First that he manifested from Antiquity in his book of Schism that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter & S. Paul , Repl. p ▪ 63 I answer , 't is graunted ; but what is this to the point ; since this might easily be performed by their promiscuous preaching , without exclusion of Iurisdiction , or breaking of all Communion between Churches . Secondly , that he manifested there , that there were two Churches at Antioch , the one of the Iews the other of the Gentile Christians . I answ . he hath not one testimony in the whole book of Schism which expresses this position nor in these later books , save onely that from the Arch-heretick Pelagius , already reply'd to , Sect 7 Thirly that in those Churches at the same time sate two distinct Bishops , Euodius & Ignatius . I answer this is onely prou'd from his owne falsification of the testimony from the Apostolicall Constitutions ; not a word of the fitting together of two in those two distinct Churches found either in that or any other place , as yet cited by him . Thus the Catholike Gentleman's stone sticks yet insost reason'd Dr. H. for want of solidnes in the place it light to reverberate its motion . Now let us see what Dr. H. who braggs so much of a Hending his Adversaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath left unreply'd upon in this his Answer to Schism Disarm'd : in which Treatise , p. 66. I objected all these weaknesses in this one point . First , that were it granted that two sate together it would not serve his turn a iott the more . For what would he infer hence ? that S. Peter & S. Paul were distinct Bishops there also ? Grant this too , what follows hence against the Pope's Authory ? I know his intent is to conclude hereupon that , therefore S. Peter & S. Paul had exclusive Iurisdictions at Antioch , therefore S. Peter's Iurisdiction was limited , therefore the Pope had not an illimitted one : but how doth the one's presiding over Iews the other over Gentiles argue a limitation of that power it self , or at all necessarily touch the interior Right ? ●uppose I should deny his consequence , & using Dr. H's word ( Repl. p. 62. upon a like occasion at Antioch ) say that this might have been onely a prudent managery , a wise ordering designed by S. Peter & S. Paul ; I wonder how he would proceed with his argument & prove his consequence that it was intended for a reall not seeming counter-Iurisdiction . I am sure as yet he hath not produced any thing at all to disannull this instance of his arguments in consequence , nor strengthen'd his proof against this obvious pretence that it might have been thus otherwise . Again , was there not room enough in Antioch ( and the like may much better be said of Rome ) for two to preside & preach in ? could not they divide the City into two halves for the better convenience of their Auditours coming promiscuously to hear their doctrine , but there must necessarily be a distinction of the Iewish & Gentile caetus , the Iewish under one & the Gentiles under tother , as Dr. H. expresses it Answ . p. 48. lin . vlt. ) telling us there that there could not be two Bishops in Rome without this distinction . Further , let us suppose that the Iewish Christians would not mingle with the Gentiles in the exercise of divine worship where there was this scandalizing diversity of their ceremonies ( for I cannot think that , holding them their fellow Christians , they should be so uncharitable as to abhorre their Communion as much as if they had been excommunicate , Schismaticks , Hereticks , or as if they had still remain'd Heathen as Dr. H. contends ) yet I see no impossibility that S. Peter in his half of the City should some times go to Iewis Congregation , sometimes to the Gentile ; & S. Paul do the like in his ; So that still Dr. H's supple bow of reason is farre from carrying home to his mark , or concluding what he purposed . Nor let him object that this distinction of the City into two parts , signifies exclusion of Iurisdiction when they met : It infers no more but that they acted prudently in so doing , & so as no wise man can be imagind ' willing to do otherwise ; since common sence teaches us that if two Preachers come to one City & each be able to perform his office without the assistance of the other , it were the height of imprudence not to separate themselves & preach a part ; nay & to show a particular care , affection , & over sight towards their own converts , and to let them know 't was convenient they should continue rather with him wtih whom they had begun . And this shall serve for an Answer to his lisping testimony out of Epiphanius that S. Peter & S. Paul were Bishops in Rome . Which Dr. H. Answ . p. 48. relies upon as a busines whose force it is not possible S. W. should dicert ; though neither it nor any testimony else expresse a syllable of S. Peter being over ●ews onely , S. Paul over Gentiles , is the point to be proved by it ; but no where exprest save onely in his own falsification interdicting them all Communion , & his own Thus we know it was at Antioch . But to return to his prudent neglects . Secondly he was told , that the testimonies alledged by himself out of Eusebius and Origen calling Ignatius the second , & out of S. Ierome calling him the third , make against the sitting of those two together , his expresse & important pretence . Yet he never answers these self opposed testimonies ; but instead of doing so adds two more Reply p. 63 out of Simeon Metaphrastes & an Anonymus ancient writer , to witnes the same & confirm my objection . Thirdly he was told that he will never finde S. Paul was accounted a parcell-Bishop in Antioch that he should have a properly call'd successor there , &c. In order to which , he offers us no reply save onely his owne former weak fancy . Fourthly that he undid all he had said with a testimony of Theodoret , which affirm'd in expresse opposition to his former place out of the Apostolicall Constitutions , that Ignatius was ordain'd by S. Peter . To which opposite testimony instead of answering , he ( seconds it with a another Reply p. 63. lin . vlt. ) was ever such a disputant heard of . Lastly , it was objected that the Apostolicall Constitutions , upon which he builds , was a book excepted against by all sides ; & Theodoret , who opposes it in this point , was an Author beyond exception , and that therefore wee have far more reason to iudge that S. Peter ordain'd Ignatius also then Evodius onely . Whence I furthe deduce that if , in the Drs. grounds , Ignatius were over the Gentiles , & ordain'd by S. Peter , as Theodoret his better Author testifies , S. Peter by consequence was over the Gentiles also in Antioch . Now what reply attempts Dr. H. against an objection which enervates all the whole Authority he relies on & shows him baffled in his own testimonies ? not a word : yet , he tells us in Greek that he attends his aduersaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , step by step ; though hee still auoids him then most warily , when his attendance is most necessary . Nothing therefore hath Mr. H. reply'd to those concerning Exceptions of mine , nothing to his own testimonies in particular , though shown to have been against him . Yet somthing he must say to every thing in one manner or other ; that 's resolu'd ; except it be to shew the falsifying words in a testimony where they are not found , in which case he is wisely silent His argument from these contradictory places is founded ( Repl. p. 64 ) in reconciling them and making them friends ; the difference he tells us is but seeming & he goes about to remove it ; which way of arguing , in the first place is perfectly absurd , unles he first prove the necessity of each testimonies being true , which he never attempts ; otherwise , to go about to prove a truth by reconciling falshoods , or truths with falshoods , is such a new inuention or arguing , that Dr. H. hath all the right & reason in the world to get a Patent of it , that none should use it without his licence . Secondly , the Authority of the Apostolicall Constitutions is acknowled'gd to be corrupt by the Protestants themselves ; & , consequently , unles he vindicate first that his main testimony fetc'ht thence is true , for any thing he knows he goes about to reconcile a truth with a falshood ; at least Theodorets Authority standing against it , it is iustly presumed to be such , which makes Dr. H's plea for his said Patent stronger . Thirdly is it such news that Authors should be of severall opinions ? or , was there ever Protestant till Dr. H. who held so , even of the fathers themselves ; yet , contrary here to his own Grounds , he will have none of them mistaken though they contradict one another ; he hath inuented a fancy how to reconcile their sayings , ere he knows or proves whether they were mistaken or no in an obscure matter of fact done long before their time . Nor cares he what this reconcilement of contradictions costs , though it make all Antiquitie blind , ●ll his new fangled cōcied or Scholion which he putts down of Schism p. 79. l. 12. gave light to the world , yet as long as he can by screwing & wresting make them favour his cause , he is a man of peace & contradictions shall shake hands and bee friends . But who is the Vmpire to decide this contradiction-quarrell ? one , God knows whom , called Ioannes Malela Antiochenus : and the testimony from him is found in a manuscript in Oxford Library : that is , we may goe look it God knows where . Yet we will trust Dr. H. for once in a testimony not extant , who hath deceived us so often in those which were publike & easie to be examined , and take the place as we find it by himself . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. when Peter went to Rome , passing by Antioch the Great , Euodius Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch happend ' to dy & Ignatius received the Bishoprick , S. Peter ordaining & enthroning him . Was there ever testimony imaginable more expresse against this very point in controversie and that in every particular than this he alledges as the knot of all his proof . See his booke of Schism . p. 75. l 26. 27. where he contends from the Apostolicall Constitutions that Euodius & Ignatius sate at the same time Bishops of Antioch . See Ioannes Malela's testimony , which was to button together all the rest , and conclude the controversy [ Euodius happen'd to dy & Ignatius succeeded him in the Bishoprick . ] See in the true testimony from the Apostolicall Constitutions put downe Schism Disarm'd p. 65. because Dr. H. had falsify'd it , Ignatius ordinatus est a Paulo , Ignatius was ordain'd by Paul : See Malela [ Ignatius received the Bishoprick , S. Peter ordaining him . Lastly see in Malela's testimony Bishoprick in the singular , Bishop and Patriarch in the singular ; whereas Dr. H. all over makes it his whole design to prove Bishops , two Bishopricks at once in the same City . Observe the word Patriarch , & ask Dr. H. whether he thinks in his conscience there were two Patriarchs at Antioch one over Iews , another over Gentiles , or where cā he even preten'd to have read or heard of such an absurd tenet . In a word there is scarce any proposition affirm'd by Dr. H. in order to this present point , but finds here it's expresse contrary ; and yet he brings this as the upshot of all his proofs , and as that where in he mean't to make all ends meet ; introducing it here in these confident terms , ( Repl. p. 64. l. 2. 3. ) that the seeming difference of his former testimonies is removed by Io. Malela Antiochenus , who thus sets down the whole matter : whereas indeed the matter he sets down is wholy contrary to Mr. H. Does this man care a pin with what false pretences he mocks his Reader & abuses his very eyes ? But was there no design in alledging this testimony , or can he make it , though quite contrary to his tenet , serve his turn for nothing ? yes ; for , there is nothing so contradictory to Dr. H's doctrine in it's self , but by cooking it up hand somely he can make his advantage of it . He wedges in two parenthesisses of his own in the middle of the testimony and then all is evident : The testimony then , as by him put down , stands gaping thus ; when Peter went to Rome passing by Antioch the Great , Euodius Bishop & Patriarch of Antioch happen'd to dy , and Ignatius ( who was , as was said , first constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there ) received the Bishoprick ( that , I suppose , must now be of the Iewish Province also , over which Euodius had been in his life time ) S. Peter ordaining & enthroning him . Now , as for the testimony it self , taken alone it is expresly against him , as hath been shown ; the onely vertue & force of it lies in the parenthesisses ; and if we examin these , the totall strength of the first lies in the words , as was said , that is , by himself , for he hath produced as yet never a testimony which says Evodius was constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles ; the sole force of the latter parenthesis lies in the all-conquering , I suppose , which is perfectly gratis , and without all show of any Ground either in Antiquitie or comon sence , as hath been largely manifested . And so by this mean's , we have gotten two other very strong testimonies to confirm his own we know ; to wit , as was said and , I suppose ; nor have we one expresse word from any testimony save from his own knowledge , his own saying , and his owne suppositions . The result is that this testimony , the upshot & knot of all the rest , is it self absolutely against him , and onely brought to countenance his parenthesisses , not with it's influence , but with it's presence ; So that his testimonies are as it were the Stock upon which he ingrafts his owne sayings either in the middle by way of a parenthesis , or by means of an , Id est , in antecedent or subsequent words ; sometimes with distinction , sometimes with none ; and so , it matters not with him what nature the Stock it self is of , since the fruit of testifying in favour of his tenet is to be expected from the accessory scyons or spriggs ( his voluntary additions ) and so need not resemble the Stock , which may be of an indifferent , perhaps contrary nature . Sect 17. How Dr. H. sleightly waves to strengthen his six Testimonies shown invalid by Schism Disarm'd ; and , in particular , what work hee makes with a Testimony from S. Prosper . HIs six following testimonies to prove that S. Peter was over Iews onely at Rome , and S Paul over Gentiles are shown ( Schism Disarm'd , p. 67. 68. 69. first not to have a word in them to that purpose , nor intimating any thing which may not aswell & much better infer a promiscuous Authoritie than an exclusive one ; since they onely signify that they founded the Church there , and were Apostles & Bishops there : Secondly , he was accused there for calling those obscure testimonies Evidences for the exclusive Iurisdiction of these Apostles one over Iews the other over Gentiles ; whereas , there was not one exclusive particle in any one of them , nor so much as Iew or Gentile named by them . Thirdly , in order to this , the notion of an Evidence was set down & manifested how far his twilight-testimony-proof were from the pretence of being such . Fourthly , his sly gullery of the Reader to his face , by endeavouring to make him beleeve that the testimonies were parallell to his owne confident affirmation that it was evident , was there layd open , & shown to be a deceit : His words ( of Schism p. 76 ) being , the same is as evident at Rome , where these two Apostles met again , and each of them erected & managed a Church S. Peter of Iews , S. Paul of Gentiles : whereas the testimonies which he usher'd in with so many Soe 's had not a word to that purpose , as was there shown . Of all these weaknesses Dr. H. was accused by his Disarmer , in answer to which he 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 irref●agable one ( as he calls it ) from the Popes ●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 , h●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 evidenc● 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 annih●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 fel● 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 those Apostles exclusive Iurisdictions , and so had then no better shift save onely to make another dumbe show of the self-same testimonies , & then crie them up for clear Evidences & sole-sufficient proofs from Antiquitie . Here the weaknes of his pretended best , I mean his Irrefragable Evidence , was shown to be most silly & weak ; where upon himself modestly decries both that & it's fellow Evidences of an inferior rank , & sayes that they are no proofs at all , but things spoken in agreement . Nor let him say that in his Reply where he called them such clear evidences & proofs , he mean't they were onely sufficient proofs that those Apostles both founded the Church at Rome ; This was never in question between us , but granted by both sides ; Neither did Schism Disarm'd ever challenge him to prove this ; but that they founded that Church with exclusive Iurisdiction over Iews & Gentiles . Now then , since in his Answer to that except on , p. 48. l. 34. 35. he refers to the said place in his Reply , he must mean there that they are sole-sufficient proofs & clear Evidences to prove exclusive Iurisdiction of the one over Iews at Rome , the other over Gentiles , unles he will confesse himself an open & manifest prevaricatour from the whole Question . Thirdly , since he puts down his own thesis in these words , that each of them at Rome erected and managed a Church , S. Peter of Iews S. Paul of Gentiles , and then immediately subjoyned his proofs in this form , So saith Irenaeus , &c. it is impossible to imagin other , but that these testimonies were produced to prove the immediate foregoing thesis . Fourthly , by denying these to be proofs , that S. Peter was at Rome over Iews , S. Paul over Gentiles , he denies by consequence that he hath produced any proof at all for that fancie of his , except his owne blush-proof confident expression [ The same as evident at Rome ] since in the 9th parag . the proper place to prove that point , there is nothing at all sound , but those testimonies denied by him here to be proofs , and his own now recited words : Though , I must confesse , towards the latter end of the 10th parag . he hath a very expresse proof in these words , [ of S. Peter's being over the Iews at Rome we make no Question ] he must mean over Iews onely , for otherwise it opposes not us who hold him our selves to have been over both Iews & Gentiles there ; So that he carries the whole question between us by saying 't is evident , and himself makes no question of it ; relying finally upon nothing but these confident raw affirmations of his own , since he denies all the testimonies he produces to be proofs of the point . Lastly , seeing he sayes that these testimonies are spoken onely in agreement with some other thing , and they had no imaginable relation to a farre-of-afore-going place of Scripture , as appears by my first note , & are most necessarily & manifestly related to prove the exclusive thesis it self , as is evident by my second , let us examin a litle nearer Dr. H's reach of reason , and strength of Logick . What mean these words that they are not produced for proofs but in agreement . I ask , have they any influence or efficacitie at all upon the conclusion or thing they are brought for , or no ? if they have , they are proofs ; if not , they are indifferent . If any thing follow out of them they infer or prove it ; if nothing , what do they there Either they are for the point & then they ground a deduction to establish it and are argumēts & proofs in it's behalf ; or else they are against it , & are still proofs , though for the contrary ; or , lastly , they are in themselves indifferent , that is neither for it nor against it , and then the first chapter of Genesis would have served his turn aswell as these neutrall testimonies ; yet Dr. H. takes it ill here that I should offer to make any incoherence appear in his discours who never in his life knew what it was to make any notions cohere at all , save onely in a loose Sermonary way , which the least puffe of declamatory aire would counterbuffe and dissipate to nothing . But the Hydra head of this Irrefragable Evidence starts up with a numerous recruit , in the form of questions ( Answer p. 49. l. vlt. ) Is not the Pope's Seal ( saith Dr. H. ) an Evidence that Paul aswell as Peter had the planting the Church of Rome . I answer , grant it ; what follows hence ? this could have been done by their promiscuous endeavours . And is not that agreable to Peter's preaching the Iews and Paul's to the Gentiles when they met in a City where were multitudes of both ? I answer you must mean to Iews onely , for 't is our tenet that each preach't to both ; and then you have been often challēged that you have not brought one syllable of proof for it but your owne word onely . Nor is their founding the Church agreable even to your owne words in any other sence then as agreable signifies indifferent , or not contrary to it , since the founding a Church , signifies onely the thing done in common , not the particular manner of doing it , either promiscuously or exclusively which is all our question but is equally appliable to both : or rather indeed , sounding onely a common endeavour in doing it , 't is rather inclinable to a promiscuous sence ; nay , the force of the word , the Church , which is to be understood of God's Church at Rome , evdently gives us to understand that there was but one Church , not two , for otherwise he was bound to say the Churches not the Church . It follows immediately after his former question . And was not that the importance of the agreement Gal. 2. 9. I answer there was no agreement there to any such purpose . The giving the right hand of fellowship was to acknowledge S. Paul a fellow-Apostle and his doctrine sincere ; the applying themselves some to Iews others to Gentiles was a pure sequell : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Circumcision , to which S. Peter lent at that time his speciall endeavours , signified the countrey of Iudea , not the Iews in dispersion , all which hath been manifested most particularly heretofore , Sect. 6. much lesse is it imported there , as Dr. H. after his openly-falsifying manner pretends here , that when they met in a City where were multitudes of both they should carry themselves thus & thus ; there being no talk there of either Cities or multitudes which he tells us here the agreement there imported , and then cites immediately for it Gal. 2. 9. without the words . But he proceeds . And is not that an Argument that Peter was not the universall Pastor , but that the Gentiles were S. Paul's Province , as the Iews S. Peter's . Not a jott good Dr. your premisses are no stronger then your bare saying , which makes your inference thence weaker then water . Your conciet of Provinces the ground-work of all your pitifull dicourse was shown to be a groūdles fiction . Nor , were there such , would it make for your purpose unles they were exclusive ; nor would it serve your intent that there was exclusivenes in the actuall endeavours of the Apostles , but you must evince an Exclusivenes in Right ere you can pretend to limit a Right : nor have you brought as yet one expresse word of any testimony to make good the least of these . Again , if by universall Pastour you mean one who hath Iurisdiction to preach in all places of the world and to all sorts of people , as your wise Argument seems to intend , you need not trouble your self , we grant each Apostle to have been an universall Pastour in this sence ; but , if you mean that S. Peter was not higher in Authoritie amongst the Apostles , how does this follow though he were supposed to be limited as a particular Bishop to his private Province ; or , as a Bishop , had a flock distinc't from S. Paul's , is not even now a dayes , the Pope's Bishoprick limitted to the Roman Diocese his Patriarchate to the West , and so his Authority under both these notions limited exclusively and contradistinguisht from other Bishops and Patriarchs , and yet wee see de facto , that he is held chief Bishop in the Church & higher in Authoritie then the rest notwithstanding . Doe not our eyes and the experience of the whole world testifie this to be so ? yet were all the former absurd inventions of Apostolicall Provinces , their exclusivenes , S. Peter over the Iews onely , &c. granted ; still his utmost inference would be no stronger then this now related which the eyes of all the world gainsay ; to wit , that because others had their particular assignations , Provinces , or Bishopriks distinct from S. Peter's , therefore S. Peter could not be higher in Authoritie then those others ; by which one may see that my learned Adversary understands not what is mean't by the Authority he impugns ; but makes account the Pope cannot be Head of the Church , unles he be the particular & immediate Bishop of every Diocese in it . Whereas , we hold him contradistinct from his fellow Bishops , for what concerns his proper & peculiar assignation ; and onely say that he is higher then the rest in Iurisdiction & power of command in things belonging to the universall good of the Church . This point then should have been struck at & disputed against , not that other never held by us , that none in the Church hath his particular Bishoprick or assignation save the Pope onely , against which onely Dr. H. makes head while he makes it the utmost aym of his weak endeavours to prove S. Peter a distinct Bishop from S. Paul , & to have had a distinct flock . Sect. 19. Dr. Hammond's method in answering his Disarmer's challenge , that hee could not show one expresse word limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions in any of those many Testimonies produced by him for that End ; and how he puts three Testimonies together to spell that one word . His palpahle falsification and other pittifull weaknesses , AFter Dr. H's Irrefragable Evidence follow'd immediately ( of Schism p. 74. ) And all this very agreable to the story of Scripture , which ( according to the brevitie of the relations there made ) onely sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the Circumcision ; and of his being so at Rome we make no question Vpon these words , his Disarmer ( Schism Disarm . p 73. ) enumerated as many significations imported by that word onely , as were obvious , & confuted them severally , because he found the words ambiguous ; telling him that neither doth Scripture onely set down S. Peter as Apostle of the Circumcision but Iames & Iohn also Gal. 2. 9. nor is S. Peter any where exprest as Apostle of onely the Circumcision but expresly particularized the contrary Act. 15. & 7. His Answer . p. 50. affords us a third signification , so impossible for S. W. to imagin , as it was to foresee all the weakneses Dr. H's cause could put him upon . 'T is this , that the words ( onely ) is set clearly in opposition to the Scripture's , making more particular relations of S. Peter's preaching to the Iewish caetus at Rome , &c. Now , had the Scripture produced by him made any particular relation at all of any such matter , then indeed his [ onely ] might have been thought to mean the want of more particular relation , &c. but if in no place alledged by him there had been found the least particular relation at all either of a Iewish caetus at Rome , or S. Peter's preaching to it particularly , or indeed so much as intimating his preaching in that City , then what ground had Dr. H. given me to imagine that the restrictive particle onely was put in opposition to a more particular relation from Scripture of that , of which the Scripture had given me no relation at all ? Is there a greater misery then to stand trifling with such a brabbler ? To omit , that , take away the former parenthesis from having any influence upon the words without it , as it ought , & then one of the significations given by me is absolutely unavoidable . But against the first signification impugned by me , he challenges my knowledge that he could not mean so without contradicting himself ; and my knowledg challenges his conscience that he cannot be ignorant how he contradicts himself frequently & purposely upon any occasion when he cannot well evade . As for the second sence I conceived that ambiguous word might bear , I repeated my challenge to him Schism Disarm . p. 73. that , If he could shew me the least syllable either in Scripture or other testimonies expresly and without the help of his , Id ests , and scruing deductions restraining S. Peter's Jurisdiction to the Iews onely & excluding it from the Gentiles , I would yeild him the Laurell and quit the Controversie . This challenge though offered him before p. 52. 53. & p. 68. yet he here first accepts , not for the Laurell's sake , he remitts that to S. W. but upon so tempting an hope as to be at an end of Controversie , which I dare say he repents he ever medled with ; yet was hee very hasty to begin with Controversies voluntarily & unprovoked ; and now when he sees himself answer'd & unable to reply , the moderate man growes weary & wishes himself at an end of them , as if he thought himself , when hee begun first , so great a Goliah that there could not be found in the whole Army of the Church a sling and a stone to hit him in the fore head . Ere I come to lay open how he acquits himself of this accepted challenge , I desire the Reader to consider , first , the import of it ; which is to exact onely of him to show one exclusive word exprest in order to S. Peter's Iurisdiction in any one of those many testimonies he produced for that end . Secondly , let him candidly observe what infinite disadvantage I offer my self , & what an incomparable advantage I offer my adversary in such an unparalleld proffer and condescension ; one restrictive word for the restrictive point now in question between us , makes him and undoes mee . Thirdly , let him remember how Dr. H. call'd those proofs Evidences for that restrictive point , the whole Controversie being about the limitation or illimitation of Iurisdiction ; and the totall scope of that first half of c. 4. to limit S. Peter's to the Iews onely . Fourthly , hence follows that it is mainly important & most absolutely necessary that Dr. H. should now lay hold of this fair occasion to lay the Axe to the root of Rome , as he exprest his intent Answ . p. 11. Fifthly , the conditions of the victory are the most facil that can be imagin'd ; for , what easier than to shew one exclusive particle , as onely , solely , alone , or some such like , exprest in any testimony if any such thing were there . Sixthly , it is to be observed that he hath accepted of the challenge , & so stands engaged to shew some such word exprest in some testimony . Seventhly he is allured to do it by the tempting hope to be at an end of Controversie , as himself confesses . And lastly , unles he come of well from so condescending , & so easy a challenge already accepted of , that is , unles he show some such exclusive particle exprest in some testimony he cannot avoid manifesting himself the most shamefull writer that ever handled pen , the most pernicious ruiner of Souls that ever treated controversy , the most insincereconscienc'd man that ever pretended to the name of a Christian , if in treating a question about Schism in which is interessed mens eternall salvation & damnation , as himself proves amply of Schism c. 1. and the most fundamentall point thereof , as himself likewise confesses this to be , which concerns S. Peter's universall Iurisdiction ( Answ . p. 74 ) hee cannot produce nor pick out one expresse word to that purpose from that whole army of his testimonies which he call'd Evidences , but from his own words onely ; So that all the motives imaginable conspire to ma●e Dr. H. as good as his word , the hazard of his Reader 's eternall damnation ; the care of his owne conscience , & of his owne credit ; the hope to be at an end of Controversie , ( none of the least to him as he is caught in these present circumstances ) promise of victory , the extreme moderation & facility of the understanding , and lastly his owne acceptation here of the challenge . By this time I know the Reader expects that Dr. should come thundering out with a whole volly of testimonies , shewing in each of them plain words expressing his tenet , at least that he should produce some one expresse particle , limitting S. Peter's Authoritie without the help of his scruing deductions , as he promist his challenger ; But , he , never so much as attempts what he late pretended ; th●t is , he attempts not to show any expresse word in any testimony , but instead there of prevaricates to his old shuffling tricks , huddles together three testimonies , and fancies a shadow like allusion from one to the other , and thence adventures to infer a conclusion . What is this to our question or my challenge , it debarr'd his scruing deductions , and required some one expresse restrictive word ; he linkes three citations together to make a sleight glosse , which no one alone could do , and then deduces & concludes , which was interdicted by his self-accepted challēge . What need three testimonies , strung together , to shew one restrictive word ? or , what relation hath the pointing out to us such a word to the inferring a conclusion from three testimonies ? I desired & he promist me some one word which was express , that is , which needed no conclusion at all ; he puts me of with a conclusion onely which intimates there was never an express word . His deductions are his , the words are the testimonies ; I never challeng'd him that he could not deduce the most ivicy conclusion , from the most flinty testimony , as he did the best in all his book of Schism from the bare monosyllable come ; My challenge was that his deductions were loud , his testimonies quite dumbe , without one expresse word in them to his purpose . This word which would have sav'd & gain'd Dr. H. so much credit & Ease I desired should be shown me ; But since he is silent in pronouncing it , he gives it for granted that he could produce none ; and so the Reader & I know what to think of him , whose self-conciet dares hazard his Reader 's Salvation upon his owne bare unauthorized sayings , and altogether unwarrantable imaginations . Now , as for his three testimonies themselves , they are the former old ones already answered over & over ; towit , that from Gal. 2. of the imagin'd agreement for exclusive Provinces , that of Epiphanius saying that the two Apostles were Bishops in Rome , and that of the Arch heretick Pelagius , concerning the holding a part the Iewish & Gentile Churches . The first he can make nothing of without an Ellipsis , which he makes up himself . Our bargain was that he should show me some exclusive word , exprest in any one of his citations for his exclusive tenet , and the first of the three lōg letterd testimonies which by being put together were to spell this one exclusive word , is imperfect without something understood , that is , notexprest . Good ! The whole force of the second from Epiphanius lies in this word Bishops , which yet affirms S. Peter & S. Paul to have been at Rome ; which word is so far from being of an exclusive signification , that it is common & inclusive of both . Yet ▪ he tells us here that it is expresse ; & makes it more ample by reciting it thus , that in Rome Peter & Paul were the same persons , both Apostles & Bishops . What force he puts in the [ same persons ] none but himself can imagin , since none ever dream't that Epiphanius spoke of two different Peters & Pauls whom he call'd Bishops , from those he call'd in the same line & with in the same comma , Apostles ▪ And , as for his last testimony 't is borrowed , frō the Arch-heretick Pelagius as hath been shown heretofore , Sect. 7. Moreover grant that the Congregations of Iews & Gentiles were for a while during the heat of the Scandall held a part at Antioch , and some other places , yet this Arch-heretick's testimony expresses not it was so at Rome when the Apostles met there , which was some years after that fit of Iewish zeal at Antioch ; and the vehemency of the Scandall , by the Apostles prudence , went on mitigating every day ; So as this unauthentick testimony borrow'd from the wicked Pelagius , hath not one expresse word of exclusion even of the Iewish caetus at Rome , much lesse of the Apostles were exclusively over those two caetusses ( as he terms them ) nor hath Dr. H. any reason to think that all the Iews of the dispersion were thus zealous , since we may gather easily ( Act. 13. 42. ) that both Iews & Gentiles were together when S. Paul preached at the Synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia , and most expressely Act. 14. v. 1. 19. we read that in Iconium , Paul & Barnabas went both together into the Synagogue of the Iews & so spake that a great multitude both of the Iews & also of the Gentiles beleeved Which , besides that it shows plainly the Iews there thought it not against Moses his law to avoid the conversation of a Gentile , so it manifests likewise that they were in a disposition rather to admit converted Gentiles than unconverted ( which yet we see here they did ) since the unconverted deny'd nay laught at Moses his law and Christ to boot , which the converted did not ; which shows that though he may have some lame pretence that the Iews at Antioch were too nice , yet he hath none at all , no not so much as a word , that this fastidious zeal was epidemicall , or that it was so at Rome ; Nor does this testimony from Pelagius expresse this at all either in circumstances of time or place ; and this expresse place of Scripture with it's fellows are main prejudices against it . Yet Dr. H. vaunts his undaunted valour , that from these three testimonies he shall adventure to infer the conclusion that S. Peter's Iurisdiction was restrained to the Iews onely & exclusively to the Gentiles . And , I question not but Dr. H. is a very bold adventurer , & is not a fraid to infer the most absurd & remote positions that ever were dream't of , out of the most unconcerning & dumb testimonies all over his hook . But , it seems that even this Conclusion of his which he deduces out of testimonies instead of shewing me one expresse word in them , is not of it self evidently consequent neither , but needs still further proofs & reasons to support it , which he puts thus ( Answ . p. 51. ) For how could there be two Bishops in one City , ( a thing quite contrary to all Rule & practice as soon as the division betwixt Iews & Gentiles was taken away ) unles there were two such distinct caetus . I answer , he neither hath nor can show that the Sitting of two in one City then sprung from such a division of the Iewish & Gentile caetus : And , if by practice , he means common practice , 't is granted ; but if he means it was never practised upon occasion , as his words [ contrary to all practice ] intimate , then I suppose one instance will suffice to destroy his universall position to wit that three paires of Bishops Meletius and Paulinus , Paulinus and Flauianus , Flauianus and Euagrius , sate successively two together Bishops of Antioch . Now what occasion there was for this in the Apostles dayes shall quickly be shown . It follows , in proof of the one expresse-worded-Conclusion , If there were two such caetus , then they that were of one caetus under one Bishops , were not of the other caetus under the other Bishop . I answer , 't is evident by the light of nature that one is not another , and needed no proofs ; yet , to show his Skill , he gives it a double one . First , because the caetus were kept a part & impermixt . So indeed said the Arch-heretick Pelagius cited by Dr. H. so oft , and relied on so firmly for the onely prop of his cause as to this point ; for hee can never make his unconnected ends of testimonies meet but by the mediation of this . Secondly , because no Bishop was to medle in another man's Province . Which , till the Testimony from Pelagius bee made authentick , touches not us ; for till then it is not prou'd these two Apostles had such distinct Provinces . Hee proceeds : And if it be pretended that it is true in coordinate Episcopaties , but holds not betwixt a Bishop & his Primate ( this is the first time he hath yet seem'd even to come near the question ) then the former arguments return again , that shew'd from Scriptures & Antiquitie that S. Paul was independent from S. Peter , and that S. Paul had the Primatū Prmacy among the Gentiles as Peter among the Iews . I reply , that my answer are full as nimble as his arguments , & return as fast as they ; telling the first of them that he haht not produc'd a word either from Scripture or Antiquitie showing that the power given to S. Paul was not dependent on S. Peter , which was the thing in question though indeed in what concerns not the question , towit , that the actuall giving the power depended not on S. Peter , but was done immediately by Christ , the Scripture , is expresse & plain . As for his second argument 't is a flat falsification , the words ( are S. Ambrose's ( which he here omits to tell us ) which as cited by himself , Answer p. 39. in the margent . Say that Peter , Primatum acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam , had received the Primacy to found the Church ; which word Church , he makes here to be the Iews onely as contradinguish't from Gentiles , though by the force of the very phrase it signify the whole Church of Christ made up of both Iews & Gentiles , & so is expresly contrary to him , & definitive for our tenet as is shown heretofore , Sect. 7. His last Stop-dāger is , that , though it may be that S. Peter did conuert some other such as Cornelius ( that is , other Iews ) yet this is not argumentative for S. W. being nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction , and withall but a whimpering ( may be ) in his language . Where first he is resolved to pursve his so oft affected mistakes that I am to argue & prove , who ( he knows well ) undertook to Answer him , & show that his arguments & testimonies prove nothing . Nor did I tell him that a Maybe may not serve , or is not proper for an Answer : my words are plain Schism Disarm . p. 20. that he ought not bring May bees for proofs . For how can a proof conclude evidently unles the inference be necessary ? or how can the inference be necessary , unles the Conclusion must be so ! and , who sees not that a May-be otherwise doth , out of the force of the terms , destroy a must be so . Wherefore , as , if I were to argue for the ground of my faith , I should hold my self obliged to leave no room for a possibility to the contrary , so I am sure I cannot wrong mine Adversary in expecting the same measure from him : If then Dr. H. whose turn it is to dispute here ( since he produces testimonies & proofs , which he calls Evidences ) will conclude any thing necessarily , his testimonies ought to infer that the matter , pretended to be proved thence must be , that is , the contrary may not be ; and then , though it be not augmētative for S. W. whose task it is not to argue ; yet it is sufficiently responsive for him to show that the contrary may be . And this is all can be exacted of me or any other defendant in rigour of Logicall disputation . If I have done more in most places than I was obliged , and shown that the contrary not onely may be , but is , & very many times that it must be ; and so have wrong'd perhaps my self in taking more pains with such a trifler then needs ; I hope I have not been iniurious to my cause by showing my self a too zealous though perhaps in some circumstances an unseasonable Patron of it in over acting the part of a Respondent or Answerer . Now that conversion , ( as Dr. H. sayes ) is nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction ( though it concerns not me at present to define one way or other , yet ) as coming from Dr. H. it is the most unbeseeming & self-contradicting position , cōfuting 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 Conv●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 ●●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 providēce 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 C●r●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 & Gētiles . 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 & addictiō 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 o●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 Iewi●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 oppose us at all , since not onely reason grants it , but our own eyes & evident experience attest it , that either of them may be immediate Bishops over severall particular flocks , and yet with this it may be easily consistent that one of those may be superior in Authority to the other , as we see in a Bishop & an Arch-Bishop , an Arch-Bishop & a Primate . Hence appears that the being Bishops at Rome both at once , which proof the Dr. most relies upon , as that whose force it is not possible to divert , neither concludes the one was over Iews onely , the other over Gentiles , for which hee produced it ; nor yet that one of them was not Superiour to the other . But to return to my Aduersary's Answer . Another agreable testimony of Dr. H's which ( as he told us candidly before ) were not proofs , that is proved nothing , is , that the Scripture affirms of S. Paul that he preached at Rome in his owne hired house receiving them that came vnto him . Act. 28. 30. which will most fitly be apply'd to the Gentiles of that City , the Iews having solemnly departed from him . v. 29. Thus he , of Schism p. 78. I reply'd ( though such a saples trifle required none ) that there was no such word as solemnly in the testimony , upon which onely he grounds . He answers here p. 52. that he cited not the word solemnly from that verse as any part of the sacred Text. I ask , why then did he put the word solemnly which is not found there in the same letter with , departed , which is found there , and immediately cite , v. 29. It was his insincere common trick I glanced at , and 't is this , that he omits the words of Scripture themselves , either confounds the two letters promiscuously , or else puts his own & the Scriptures words equally in the common letter , and then immediately cytes the place for it , without intimating at all , that 't is his owne deduction onely from that place , but , by the whole carriage of it , gulling the unwary Reader that all is pure Scripture , to which he subjoyns his insincere citation , relating us to a place where the most important words are wanting . Next , he goes about to prove the solemnity of their departure from other verses in the same Chapter . I ask ; what is this to the pretence that their solemne departure was found v. 29. which hee cited for it ? I deny'd not the solemnity of reprehension exp●est to the unbeleeving Iews in other verses , but onely , that there was any solemnity of departure exprest in that verse ; for read the whole place , & we finde not a word of any resolution in them to come no more , much lesse of any resolution in S. Paul not to preach to them , wheresoever he found them in other places ( which nevertheles was that which Dr. H. should have show'd ) and indeed nothing but an ordination of God , that his law should be preach't to Gentiles . [ First then , the words of solemn reprehension , [ The heart of this people is waxen grosse , and their ears dull of hearing ] are impossible to be apply'd to the Iews which believed , as is exprest v. 24. we have therefore no ground hence of any solemnity of departure in order to them . Secondly S. Chrysostome whom he cites here for this point onely says as he puts him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , when they agreed not they departed ; that is , they not believing forsook him , where 't is plain he speaks expresly of the unbeleeving not of the beleeving , and yet plainer f●om what Dr. H. puts after wards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , those words of Scripture he apply'd to them upon their unbelief . Now , since S. Chrysostome speaks of those to whom S. Paul apply'd the words of Scripture , & these are impossible to be apply'd to the Iews which v. 24. beleeved , it is equally impossible his words should be appliable to the beleeving Iews . Thirdly , grant he had solemnly reprehended the innocent beleeving Iews also , was it not possible for them to return after such a dismission , nor for S. Paul to apply himself again to them ? nay was it not possible this might have been don even to the unbeleevers themselves ? I am sure the Texts says nothing to the contrary , for to this purpose I instanced ( Schism Disarm . p. 74. ) that Act. 13. 46. both Paul & Barnabas told the Iews boldly that they would turn to the Gentiles , & departed more solemnly , shaking of the dust of their feet , v. 51. and yet they afterwards preach't many times to the Iews , as is to be seen in the Acts. By which I onely could mean that this greater vehemency & solemnity of their departure hinder'd them not yet from applying themselves to the Iews for the future : But my acute Adversary takes it as if I expected the self-same shaking of the dust of their shoes , at Rome also ; and , having given his reasons , concludes that therefore this ceremony was not now seasonable . A very seasonable and pertinent Answer . Now , as for the beleeving Iews remaining with S. Paul he answers this with If 's and expects I should produce Evidence against them . Is not this a gallant disputant ? when his argument is shown to be weak , he under props it with a lame If , and then tels his Aduersary he must supply his turn and argue , because he ( alas ) is weary , hath already done his best , & can stretch no further . Yet he grants that those Iews which beleeved ( if they continued ) became a part of S. Paul's caetus , and allows it possible that some Gentiles might be in S. Peter's , instancing himself in Clemens . Now , then , I would ask , if this be so , how many Iews S. Paul might convert & govern , and how many S. Peter ? some , he says here , is no prejudice to his tenet ; I would know then what be the stints & limits of this number of heterogeneus converts , beyond which their Iurisdiction might not passe ; or , why they should be so partiall as to admit some & send away others who came to them with the same desire to hear Christ's doctrine . Again , I would ask , what the Iewish converts vnder S. Paul should do in case they hap to take a toy against the Gentiles for eating a peece of Pork ; Dr. H's grounds in this case interdicts them all Communion & conversation ; According to his doctrine , S. Peter must have two altogether-uncōnected Churches under him , a greater one of Iews a lesser of Gentiles ; and S. Paul , on the other side , a vast Church of Gentiles & a smaller kind of a Chappell of Iews . And thus Dr. H's former agreable discourse , neither agrees with any thing els nor it self neither ; since , the same difficultie occurs here as if each Apostle had preach't promiscuously & indifferently both to Iews & Gentiles ; since each must be over two Congregations if the Iews hapt to be too zealous for Moses his law , aswell as in the other case of preaching to both , which he so much strove to evade ; & ●ould by no means admit . Sect. 21. How Dr. H. vindicates his Falsification of S. Ignatius by committing another . His formerly call'd Evidences deny'd now by himself to bee proofs for the point ; but , metamorphos'd into Branches of Accordances , seasonable Advertissements and Fancies . The rare game in hunting a●●er his proofs , with the issue of that sport . SChism Disarm'd p. 76. accused Dr. H of subjoyning out of his own head words most important & expresly testifying the point in hand , to a dry testimony of S. Ignatius . He qualifies the fault , too great to be acknowledg'd with what truth shall be examin'd . The place it self onely related that Linus was Deacon to S. Paul Clemens to S. Peter . Dr. H. of Schism p. 78. puts it thus , Accordingly in Ignatius Ep. ad Trall . we read of Linus & Clemens that one was S. Paul's the other S. Peter's Deacon , both which afterwards succeeded them in the Episcopall Chair Linus being constituted Bishop of the Gentile , Clemens of the Iewish Christians there . Where , note . First , that there is nothing but a simple comma at the word [ Deacon ] where the testimony ends ; nor any a thing like a full point of a testimony till the words [ the Iewish Christians there . ] Secondly , there is no other distinctive note imaginable to let us know which are testimonies , which his own words . Thirdly all the art insincerity could imagin was used here to make no distinction appear : as to tell us we read what follow'd there , & never telling us how far we read it ; to iumble the two different letters confusedly together ; and to put the words , Episcopall Chair , Bishop , Gentile , Iewish Christians , which were not found in the testimony , in the small translating letter , and the same with the word Deacon , which was found therein . Fourthly , the word [ Deacons ] found in the testimony , is nothing at all to our controversy , for what is it to us that S. Peter had such a Deacon , and S Paul such another ? whereas the other words subjoined by himself are mainly important to his point . Lastly , this confident affirmation of his , that Linus was constituted Bishop of the Gentile , Clemens of the Iewish Christians there , is no where els either found , or so much as pretended to be shown , and so it could not be imagined but that those words were part of this testimony . For who could ever think that any man should be so shamelesly insincere as to put down such concerning expressions under the shadow of a testimony , and yet those expressions authorised by nothing but his owne word , nor found any where but in his self-inuented additions . All these sleights discover plainly that there was artifice and design in the busines ; and that he slily abused his Reader , by putting a testimony , which signify'd nothing , for a cloake , and then adding what he pleas'd ; hoping it might be countenanced by the grave Authority of Ignatius , and , by such a dexterous management , bee taken for his , at least he hop't it might passe unsuspected by his confident asserting it ; or , how ever , he hop't at least that for his last refuge he could evade by saying he mean't it not for a proof , but in agreement onely , or ( as hee prettily calls it here ) a branch of accordance ; and that 's a defence good enough for him , being as good as the nothing-proving proof was . The shadow of a buckler is the fittest to defend the shadow of a body . He is troubled that I expected this testimony should say any thing to S Peter's being onely over the Iews . What could I expect other ? our question is about the limitation of Iurisdiction , what serve his testimonies for , or what do they there unles they can prove that ? But he say's that that conclusion was proved out of Scripture ; which is a flat falsification , since he could neither show me one restrictive word in Scripture to that purpose , whereas his position even now put down & pretended to be proved thence is restrictive ; nor durst he rely upon Scripture alone , when he was to find us that so much desired one word , but was forced to peece it out with other two places from Epiphanius & Pelagius the Archeretick , To omit that the testimony it self Gal. 2. expresses nothing of any agreement for such an end , as ( Sect. 6. ) hath been amply shown . He adds that this from Ignatius is onely a branch of accordance with that . In the name of wonder where shall we look for Dr. H's proofs ? There is not one testimony he hath produced out of Antiquitie as yet for this point , but he falls from it when he should maintain it , & say's 't is no proof but onely spoken in agreement , or ( as here i● a quainter & gentiler phrase ) a branch of accordance , and a seasonable advertissement . Come along Reader let thee and I go hunt after Dr. H's proofs for this point from the first starting it ; To trace it step by step , we begin with of Schism , c. 4 par . 4. where he say's that question of S. Peter's supremacy must be managed by Evidences , & so concluded either on the one side or the other ; professing there that he began to offer his Evidence for the Negative . Let us not despair then of these Evidences & proofs so solemnly promis't us , but addresse our selves for their quest . The fifth par . begins thus ; And first it is evident by Scripture S. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision or Iews exclusively to the Vncircumcision or Gentiles . Here we se the point to be evidenced , and from Scripture . Now in this par . ( which hath such a fair promising beginning ) there are two places of Scripture , the famous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , both which he denies to be Evidences Answ . p. 38. But to proceed : The 6. par . begins with an If , proceeds with a parenthesis , agreable onely as hee there expresses it ; and so , according to him , no proof . The rest are his own words onely till we come at S. Iames , and the proofs following till we come to the end of the par . are not in order to the main point , but onely to prove that Iames at Hierusalem was consider'd as a Bishop ( which was out of question between us ) as himself declares his owne meaning Answ . p. 43. l. 27. The rest of that as also the next parag . proceeds with Accordingly , p. 74. l. 4. and again , Accordingly ibid. lin . 20. According p 75. lin . 22. which show that all these were not proofs , but things spoken in agreement , or branches of accordance onely . Five testimonies follow par . 9. in order to those two Apostles planting the Church at Rome ; which he expresly denies to be proofs of this our point Answ p. 49. l. 32. 33. and sayes they are spoken in agreement onely , as also the next three which are found in the beginning of the tenth , though one of them be here call'd an Irrefragable Evidence . But let us pursve our game . These testimonies over past , the next from Scripture are introduc't with Agreable , and so are meant to be in agreement onely and no proofs . The 11th par . begins with Accordingly again , which leads in the late-ill-treated testimony from Ignatius , deny'd here Answ . p. 53. to be a proof for the pretended point , and exprest to be onely a branch of accordance lin . 26. The rest of the 11th par . is his own Scho●ion onely , and pretends no proof . The two next paragraphs are nothing but his owne words relating to the former onely accordant no proofs ; and so being meerly corollary accordances or thin deductions from the other , can have no more force then their aiery Parents . And if we look narrowly into them we shall finde the whole strength of the one consists in the words [ by all which it appears ] to wit , by his branches of accordance , which , hee confe●es , bear no fruit of proof : of the other in ( It 〈◊〉 manifest . ) The 14. & 15. par . are employ'd in showing S. Iohn over the Iews also , and not S. Peter over the Iews onely , and that Timothy was over Gentiles , but not a word that he was over Gentiles onely there found . In the 16 par . he huddles together a cōpany of his own demāds ; which , I conceive , are not things like proofs . Though I confesse towards the middle of it he hath a most pregnant proof , and enough to make his honest Protestant Reader as glad as if he had found an Hare sitting ; but , when Schism Disarm'd brought him nearer it , it proved to be nothing but a brown clodd . It was his most ample & most importantly-expressive Scripture-testimony from the bare monosyllable Come . The 17. par . hath no pretence of proofs ; Nor yet his 18th , but is totally built upon his own words , [ The same may certainly be said ] and [ I● must in all reason be extended no farther ] &c. The 19th begins with his own suppositiou ; and is prosecuted with the old Accordingly , which halesin by the arme another branch of accordance from S. Prosper , which ends all that particular Controversy ; the next par . that is the 20th begining a new busines ; that is , the donation of the Keyes . All the testimonies then hitherto related are accordances onely , now what an Accordance or a thing in agreement means is best known from himself , Answ . p. 49. l. 32. ) that they are not proofs of the thing they agree to ; that is , have no influence to conclude or infer it to be so , whence follows that the said testimonies are in themselves indifferent to the main point , and onely appliable to it ; the sleightest manner of arguing that ever was argued by any man for such an important point , whose Soul a security in his Schism hath not made sleepy . But , let us see to what these indifferent & nothing-proving accordances relate and agree to ; that is , let us see what is his onely proof for his main point . He intimates to us Answ . p. 53. l. 21. 24. and p. 49. l. 28. that of Gal. 2. To it then let us go , as being his onely proof he stands to for this point , which therefore we have purposely reserv'd till the last . We finde it in the beginning of parag . 7. of Schism , sleightly touched at thus . So again for the Vncirc●mcision or Gentile Christians they were not S. Peters Province , but pec●liarly S. Paul's , by S. Peter's own confession & acknowledgment Gal. 2. 7. Expect Reader that this onely proof of Dr. H's shall come of well & be expresse for the point in question , how ever his branches of accordances have sped . To do him right I will put downe this 7th v. as I finde it in their owne translation ; But contrariwise when they saw that the Gospell of the Vncircumcision was committed unto me , as the Gospell of the Circumcision was unto Peter . Where ( and the same may be said of the following verses ) first , there is nothing at all expressing Iurisdiction which is our question , but onely of preaching the Gospell to them , that is of converting them ; which himself acknowledged to be nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction . Answ . p. 51. l. 25. 26. Secondly , there is nothing there exprest of any exclusive power of preaching to Iews onely , as he expresly pretended Answ . p. 53. l. 22. from these or else the following verses . Thirdly , this particular Commission hath already ( Sect. 6. ) been shown from the following verse to be nothing but God's more efficacious assistance . Fourthly , here is not the least news of S. Peter's own confession & acknowledgment of any thing , as he in his onely proof in big terms pretends & quotes for it immediately Gal. 2. 7. unles he contend that the words ( they saw ) signifie they confest & acknowledged ; and so make seeing & saying to be all one ; which is nothing with him ; fifthly , if he pretend this is not the place or verse of the Gal. which he relies on , I answer I neither finde this corrected in the Errata , not v. 9. ( which in his Answer he recurrs to chiefly ) quoted at all in his book of Schism c. 4. for this point , but onely for S. I●mes his being named before S. Peter p. 72. l. 10. And besides , the same exceptions of insufficiencie now made against this , are equally made against the other . Sixthly , his According●ies begin to come in play p 74. l. 4. a litle after his citation of this verse , which manifests this to have been the place pretended for his onely proof , to which the rest accorded . Lastly , this being then his solely-reliedon proof , after what a strange manner he manages it ? one would think that he should have put down the words , and either have show'd them expresse ; or else , if they were not , make his deductions from them : what does this acute-sincere man ; he omits wholy the words ; gravely and sleightly touches the false sence he hath given , them ; puts downe his owne tenet , subjoins to it the words [ S. Peter's own confession and acknowledgment ] pretends them to be Scripture ; & immediately cites the place , where no such words were found . Was ever such a weak Soul put into a body ; and yet this is the man cry'd up for the best of the Protestant Controvertists . Thus ends the slender-sented pursuit of Dr. H's proofs for this main fundamentall point of his , that S. Peter was not over the Gentiles . The result of which is , that all the Testimonies he alledged for it are no proofs but dwindling accordances onely ; and his onely proof Gal. 2. both impertinent & falsified . So rotten are all Dr. H's branches of accordances and also the saples tree it self , whence those soon-blasted Imps Sprouted . But , besides the Gentile expression of branch of accordance , he hath here Answ . p. 53. two other pretty expressions of this testimony , concerning Linus & Clemens being S. Peter's & S. Paul's Deacons ; the one , that 't is a seasonable advertissement ; the other , that 't is a phansy ( as he writes it ) And sayes that he who likes not the phansy should have directed his Reader to some other solid way to reconcile those repugnants of story concerning Linus & Clemens . As if it were so necessary a thing that all repugnances in Story should be reconcil'd , or that the repugnant sides must necessarily both be true ; Wherefore , let him but first evidence that either part of that never-as yet-reconcil'd repugnance is certainly tru , & I will undertake to reconcile them better then Dr. H. hath done in making one over Iews the other over Gen●iles onely . Although , if one side or both be false , I must confesse it beyond my skill to reconcile truths with falshoods , or falshoods with one another . Moreover , Schism Disarm . p. 77. directed him expresly to some other wayes how the fathers went about to reconcile that repugnance ; which he instead of confuting or so much as acknowledging I did , objects here that I should direct him to some other solid way ▪ and truly , I shall ever account the ancient fathers more solidly able to reconcile repugnances in Story near their dayes ( were they reconcileable ( then such a weak iudgment , as Mr. H's so long after . Sect. 22. Dr. H. affected ignorance of the Popes Authority which hee impugns , framing his Objections against an immediate Governour , not a mediate or Svperiour . His pretended infallibility in proving S. Iohn higher in dignity of place than S. Peter . His speciall gift also in explicating Parables , and placing the sa●nts in Abraham's bosome . Dr. H. of Schism c. 4. par . 13. affirmed that for another great part of the Christian world It is manifest that S. Peter had never to do , either mediately or immediately , in the planting or governing of it , and instanced in Asia pretended to be onely under S. Iohn . I answer'd ( Schism Disarm . p. 78. ) that he brought nothing to prove his own It is manifest . He replies here ( Answ . p. 54. ) that this is manifestly evinced by the testimonies annexed p. 14. and upon this calls me an Artificer , that he is now grown into some acquaintance with me , and yet ( virtue is grown necessity with him ) he must not take it amisse ; nor shall he truly if I can give him any iust satisfaction . I desire to gain & keep every man's good will , though I will not court it by the least compliance nor kindnes to the detriment of Truth . Bear in memory Reader this positiuely absolute t●●sts of his , that S. Peter had nothing to do either mediately or immediately , &c. And if thou findest any word in any testimony produced by him , expressing this ample position , or that S. Peter had nothing to do in governing them mediately ( which is the question ) save onely that he govern'd them not immediately ( which is nothing to our question ) then I give thee leave to account me an Artificer or what thou wilt : but if thou findest not a word to that purpose , do thy self the right as to think Dr. H. is a most notorious deluder , & beware of him as such . I shall put down all his testimonies as largely as himself did in the 14. par . to which he refers me . The first is from Clemens Alexandrinus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where appointing Bishops ; The second and third are from Eusebius , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , where obtaining some one part , or lott . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he administred the Churches there . Now , in these three testimonies we finde onely that S. Iohn appointed Bishops in Asia , which we grant that each Apostle might do where ever he came over all the world ; that he obtained one certain lott or Bishoprick , to wit that of Ephesus , which signifies no more but that he was a particular Governour there ; that he administred the Churches there ; all which is competent to every Metropolitan in God's Church , whom yet wee see daily with our eyes to be under an higher Ecclesiasticall Governour , and cōsequently his Churches under him are under the same Governour mediately , although immediately under the inferior onely . His fourth testimony is a flat & wilfull falsification ; 'T is taken from S. Prosper , & put down by him thus , Ioannes apud Ephesum Ecclesiam sacrauit , Iohn at Ephesus consecrated a Church . Whereas the place it self is Gentium Ecclesiam sacrauit , consecrated the Church of the Gentiles . Now because all over this par . 't is Dr. H's pretence that S. Iohn was at Ephesus over Iews onely , and the word Gentium would by no means be won to signify that , nor yet would the word [ Nations ] ( as he render'd it before ) any way serve to signify onely Iews , he prudently maim'd the testimony , & left out the malignant word Gentium , because it could by no art be brought to favour , but vtterly defy'd & contradicted his party . A politick Divine ! yet as long as this rare crafts man in the art of falsifying can but call S. W. an Artificer all is well , & the good women will believe him . The testimonies for Timothy under S. Paul being over the Gentiles in Asia , are of the same strain or worse ; the first of which expresses no more but , that he undertook the care of the Metropolis of Ephesus , that is , was particular Metropolitan of that place . The second affirms at large that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. An whole entire Nation , that of Asia , was entrusted to him . Now S. W. imagining that an whole entire Nation could not signify Gentiles onely , or a part of that Nation , call'd it an unpardonable blindnes to alledge this testimony for a tenet quite contrary to what it exprest ; But I am suddenly struck blind my self and caught that disease onely by seeing Dr. H's blindnes . And first , I am blind for not seeing that the testimony related to Timothy & not to S. Paul ; whereas himself promising us in the end of his 13. par . to insist on S. Iohn & S. Paul , and after he had treated of S. Iohn in the 14th using these very words in the 15. throughout all the Lydian Asia the faith was planted by S. Paul among the Gentile part and by him Timothy constituted Bishop there ; and then immediately introducing his testimony with so saith Chrysostome , he must be blind who could think this testimony was not mean't of S. Paul. Add that the testimony it self speaks not of constituting a Bishop , & so gave me no occasion to imagin it related to Timothy's being thus constituted ; and besides , the words ( throughout all Asia ) which he joyns there with S. Paul , were fittest to be related to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the testimony . Nor , can it be pretended to have been an affected oversight ; since I gain not the least advantage by it , it being equally strong for Dr. H's weak argument whether Timothy or S. Paul were onely over Gentiles there , for which it was produced . My second blindnes is that I could not see the obvious Answer , which is that S. Chrysostome puts it onely in opposition to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , precedent ; the testimony being ) as he afterwards puts it ) that Timothy was entrusted with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Church , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or rather an entire Nation . Now in the book of Schism he omitted himself the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the former part of the testimony , & then tells me 't is obvious it was put in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and so I am become blind for not seeing that which was not at all there , but left out by himself . Gramercy good Dr. When he say's that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not set to denote all the severall sorts of caetus in Asia ; I ask , do●s it exclude any , or is it set in opposition to the Iews ? if not , how can it possibly signifie the Gentile part onely , for which hee produced it ? my blindnes then , Reader , consists in this that I would not renounce the most common light of nature , & think that an whole & a part is the same ; nor consent to believe that the words ( an whole entire Nation ) signifie one sort of people living there or part of that Nation onely . In order to these late testimonies it is to be observed , first , that our tenet makes the Pope over the whole Church in this sence ( not that he governs each particular Church immediately but ) that he is chief in Authority & over those inferior Bishops , Metropolitans , &c. who are the immediate Governours of those particular Churches , and so he becomes mediately in this sence over all Churches , or the whole Church . Secondly our parallel tenet of S. Peter is not that when he was Apostle he could preach in more places then another , but that he had an higher Authority then the other , each of which could preach in any or all places of the world ▪ and that when he was fixt Bishop , he had an influence of Authority over any other Apostles when they were fixt Bishops in other places , not that he was immediate Bishop or Metropolitan of their particular Bishopricks . Thirdly , hence is evident that the proofs which can prejudice this point must signifie that those particular Apostles , Metropolitans , or Bishops , had none superior to themselves , and by consequence who were mediate●y over their Churches , and that it avails nothing at all nor comes to the point to prove that such & such were over such & such particular Iurisdictions immediately : no more than if some writer 500. years hence should argue that the Pope was not in the year 1650. Supreme Governour in our Church , because he findes at that time such a one Primate in France , & another Arch-bishop of Toledo in Spain . Fourthly , it is no lesse evident that Dr. H's pretence that it is manifest that S. Peter had nothing to do either mediately or immediately in governing the Churches of Asia , from the former testimonies which exprest onely that those Churches , or that country were under those Apostles or Bishops , without a Syllable signifying that those Apostles themselves were not vnder an higher Apostle , and so their Churches mediately subject to him ; it is evident , I say , that he hath not produc't a word to prove his position except his own , It is manifest ; and consequently it was no artificiall trick , but plain downright naturall Truth to challenge him with that palpable weaknes . Fiftly , his whole processe is in another respect totally impertinent & frivolous . His fundamentall intent was to limit the Iurisdictions of the Apostles , as such ; & to make them mutually-exclusive under that notion , by giving to each proper Apostolicall Provinces ; and here , proceeding to make good that his intent , he proves them limitted as they were Bishops ; which is a quite different thing . For every Bishop , as such , is over his own peculiar flock and particulariz'd to it ; where as that of an Apostle ; being not a settled Authority as the other , hath not in it's own nature any ground to be constant to such , but may be promiscuous to all . Though it was not forbidden to any Apostle to settle himself in some particular seat , & so become a Bishop of that place . The result then of all the former testimonies is this , that Dr. H. avoyd's the whole question of the mediate Government of S. Peter , which is the point his Adversary holds , and disproves the immediate onely which wee never held , and , when he hath done , tells his Readers Answer p. 56. S. W. hath little care to consider that , wherein the difficulty consists ; when as himself never toucht the difficultie at all . But I had forgot the beginning of his 14. par . that S. Iohn had the dignity of place before all other in Christ's life time , even before S. Peter himself . Now I went about to parallell it by the proportion an elder Brother hath to a younger , which is a precedence without Iurisdiction , & so resembles Dr. H's dry Primacy . But the Dr. ( Answ . p. 55. ) catches my similitude by one of those feet by which it was not pretended to run , add's to it excellencie of power of his own head which was never named nor insisted on by me , and when he hath done say's that 't is an addition of my fertile fancy ; whereas I never pretended it as his words but my parallell ; nor yet put force in the superiority of Iurisdiction , but in that of a dry precedency onely : neither meaning nor expressing any more by highest in dignity , than himself did by dignity of place before all others . In his Answ . p. 54 he tells us he mention'd two things of Iohn . 1. of Christ's favour to him , and this ( he say's ) is infallibly inferr'd from the title of beloved Disciple . I stand not upon the thing , both because 't is unconcerning our question , & true in it self ; onely I am glad to see that Dr. H. is more certain in his inferences than his Church is of her faith ; since he is confident of his infallibility in those ; whereas , in this , to wit , in faith , he onely affirm's that it is not strongly probable his Church will erre , Repl. p. 16. At length , Protestant Reader , thou seest whether thou art to recurre for thy infallible Rule of faith ; to wit , to Dr. H●s inferences . The second is S. Iohn's dignity of place before all others , which ( he say's ) was irrefragably concluded from the leaning in his breast at Supper . Here again Dr. H. is irrefragable & infallible ; yet he no where reads that S. Iohn thus lean'd on Christ's breast more then once : nor can we imagin that our Saviour taught his Disciples that complementalnes as to sit constantly in their ranks at meat , seeing that in this very occasion , to wit , that very night , he forbid such carriage by his own example , and that euen at meat , Luke 22. v. 26. 27. L●● him that is gr●atest among you be as the younger , & he that is chief as he that doth serve . For whether is greater , he that sitteth at meat or he that serveth ? Is not he that sitteth at meat ? But I am among you as he that serveth . So far was our Saviour from giving occasion for over weening by any constant partiality of placing them at table , that his expresse doctrine and example was to bring them to an humle indifferency , and that in serving one another , much more in sitting before or after another . But , to return to Dr. H. as he is Master of ceremonies to the Apostles , & places them at table ; His doctrine is that S. Peter had a Primacy of order onely amongst the Apostles without Iurisdiction , which consequently could be nothing but a dry complementary precedency to walk , stand , or speak first , &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 . Is it possible now that any man should go about to cloak such a falsification , which evidence as clear as eyesight had manifested in it's most shame full nakednes ? nothing is impossible to be done in Dr. H's way . He excuses himself first Answ . p. 57. l. 9. because he thought it was conclusible from those words , 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. But who bad him think so , when there was never a word in the testimony or in the whole Epistle but might have been said by a Metropolitan to a Bishop , or a Bishop to any Priest ; to wit , that he would order things when he came , bidding him be have himself well , &c. Again , if he intended to conclude , why did he not put some expression of that his intent , that the Reader might not be deluded by his quoting the place immediately after those words : This pretence therefore is most frivolous & vain . First , because his words are positive , absolute , & , as it were , commanding our assent from the Authority of Scripture , not exprest like an inference or conclusion ; doth not S. Paul , &c. as also because they are relations of matters of fact ; and , lastly , because they who conclude from Scripture , put the place first , & then deduce from it ; whereas , he quotes the place after his own words , as we use to do for words found really in Scripture ; wherefore , either he intended not to conclude but to gull the honest Reader that his sole important forgeries were sure Scripture ; or else , if he meant to conclude , he very wisely put his conclusion before the premises , and such a conclusion as had but one unconcerning & useles word common to it & the premises . Secondly , he tells us , that to say that he inferr'd the whole conclusion from the word come is one of S. W's arts whereas I charged him not for inferring thence , but for putting down those words for pure Scripture . Again , himself ( so good is his memory ) confesses this same thing seven or eight lines before , which he here renounces ; where having mention'd the former long rabble , he told us in expresse terms that he thought it was conclusible from S. Paul's words , 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Now then , there being not one word of this pretended conclusion found in that place , save the monosyllable Come , nor one exclusive particle , nor even the least ground of any , he must either infer his pretended conclusion from that or from nothing . Thirdly he alledges that he thought his grounds had been visible enough being thus laid ; and then proceeds to lay them . But the iest is he never layd down any such pretended grounds at all in the book of Schism where he cited that place , and so it was impossible they should be visible , being then , perhaps , not so much as in their causes . And as for these pretended grounds they are nothing but a kinde of explication of that place , that S. Paul sent an whole Epistle of Instructions , & hoped to give him farther instructions , that he should behave himself well in his office , &c. which are all competent to any Bishop in order to a Priest , or to any subaltern Governor in respect of an inferior ; and so hinders not but S. Paul might be under another , though thus over Timothy . Fourthly , as for those exclusive words , no other Apostle could countermand or interpose in them , leaving no Appeal , no place for farther directions , onely to himself , which were objected , & so it belonged to him if he could not show them exprest there & so clear his falsified citation , at least to show them concluded & deduced thence , as 6. or 7. lines before he had promist us . But he quite prevaricates even from deducing them thence when it comes to the point , and instead of doing so & proving them from the pretended place , he repeats again the same demands bids us prove the contrary . I now demand ( saith he ) whether S. Paul left any other Appeal or place for farther directions save onely to himself . I answer , does the place alledged say any thing to the contrary , or is any such thing conclusible thence , as you pretended : If it be , why do not you make good your own proof from the place , & show this restrictive sence either there in expresse terms , or else by framing your conclusion from it ? why do you instead of thus doing your duty , stand asking me the same question over again ? He proceeds . Whether could any other Apostle by any power given him by Christ countermand or interpose in them ? what need you ask that question ? you knew long ago that our Answer would be affirmative that S. Peter could , in case he saw it convenient for the good of God's Church ; or , what is the asking this question over again to the showing that the contrary was either expresly or conclusively there , as you pretended . If any could , let him be named & his power specified , saith the Dr. Is not this a rare man to counterfeit himself ignorant whom we hold for Head of the Apostles , when as himself hath from the beginning of this Chapter impugned S. Peter as held such by us ! And to carry the matter as if he delay'd his proofs till he knew our Answer , aswell known to him before hand , as his own name . It follows , & let the power be proved by virtue whereof he should thus act . I marry : now the Dr. is secure , when all else fails he hath constantly recourse hither to hide his head . When his Argument or proof is shown to bee falsify'd in the expresse terms , hee pretends to conclude thence ; and when 't is shown unable to conclude any thing , instead of proceeding to make it good or show that cōclusible from thence , which he promised , he leaves it of , as some impertinent questions , and bids his Answerer take his turn & prove ; because he ( alas ) is graveld and cannot go a step further . This done he triumphs . But S. W. dares not , I am sure doth not affirm this . What dare not I , and do not I affirm ? that S. Peter had power over the rest of the Apoles in things cōcerning the good of the universall Church . 'T is my expresse tenet , which he is at present impugning ; and which I both do affirm & dare maintaine ( so prevalent is Truth ) against Dr H. though back't by forty more learned then himself . But this politick Adversary of mine , seeing he could not argue me out of my faith , would needs fright me or persuade me from it , threat'ning me first that I dare not ; next , assuring mee that I do not affirm i● . This solid discourse premised , hee shuts up with an acclamation of victory thus : And , if it cannot be said ( as no doubt it cannot ) then where was S. Peter's supreme Pastorship ? Where all the force of this upshot of his lies in the If , and no doubt , both of them equally addle & frivolous , since himself & all the world knows very well that we both can & do affirm & hold that S. Peter was Superior in Authoritie to all the rest of the Apostles . Thus Dr. Hr. toyes it with his Readers , hoping that the greater part of them will be arrant fools . First , putting down a company of expressions totally disanulling S. Peter's Authority , and immediately quoting for them , 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Next , when he is challenged of falsifying , instead of showing any word there more then the poor monosyllable Come , saying , he onely mean't it was conclusible or deducible thence . And lastly , instead of concluding , proving , or deducing that Iurisdiction limiting sence from those words , which at least was necessary , onely saying the same words over again , asking some questions to which he knew the answer long ago , bidding his Answerer supply his turn & prove , telling us we dare not & do not affirm what his own knowledge & what his own eyes assure him we both dare & do in this very present Controversy , and then concluding all with an If built upon the former , & no doubt bred in his own head & grounded upon his own fancy . Is such an Adversary worth the losse of an hour's time to confute ! were it not that the Authority he hath got by a sleightly-connected Sermon , enabling him to do some mischief amongst the more vulgar , made it necessary to lay him open plainly & to show how unsafe it is for them to let their Salvations rely in the least upon so incomparably weak a Controvertist . THIRD PART . Containing a Refute of Dr. H's second fundamentall Exception against the Pope's Authority , from the pretended equall donation of the Keys to S. Peter . Sect. 1. How Dr. H's Shuflingly avoids either to acknowledge or d●sacknowledge the notion of an Evidence given . What he means by his Evidences ; and what is to be expected from Catholikes in manag●ng a Wit-controversy concerning Scripture . His weak attempt to clear himself of Prevarication , Injuriousnes and Calumny objected . MY 13. Section in Schism Disarm'd begun with putting down the true notion of an Evidence ; having already shown p. 17. that nothing but a perfect certainty sprung from such rigorous & convincing proofs could rationally oblige the understanding to assent ; and that all assents , sprung from that , were originiz'd from passion . Whence follows that the first Protestants could no way rationally relinquish the Authority & Government of the former Church they were bred in , & conclude in their thoughts that her Doctrine was false , her Government an usurpation , unles moved by the said light of evident & demonstrative Reasons ; that is , unles they had grounds sufficient in their own nature to convince them that it was so , and could not but be so . For , surely , even in common prudence it had been the most rash action imaginable to hazard the most greeveus sin of Schism , & consequently an eternity of misery to their Souls upon probability onely . How great a favour Dr. H. had done himself , ( who , though he begun first to write , ) yet now Answ . p. 50. l. 32. expresseth a great desire to be at an end of Controversie ; and how great a kindnes he had confer'd on S. W to have answer'd positively to these two points I or no , to wit whether lesse then such a rigorous Evidence could iustify the renouncing an Authority & possession so qualified , and whether his pretended Evidences , I or no , were such , I need not much declare . The whole controversy depends upon these two hinges & will quickly finde a decisive conclusion , if these points were positively answer'd to , & vigorously pursued . Now , my notion of a Testimony Evidence ( Schism Disarm . p. 88. ) was this , that the testimony it self must be authentick beyond dispute ; and the words alledged so directly expressing the thing to be proved that they need no additions or explications to bring them home to the matter , but are of themselves full , ample , & clear , & such as the Alledger himself , were he to expresse his thoughts in the present Controversy would make choice of to use . Whether he likes this definition of a Testimony Evidence or no , he is resolu'd wee shall not know . He dares not be negative or say he dislikes it , because , what ever testimony falls short of this , falls short likewise of proving that the thing must be ; and so , concludes onely that it may be ; which being too weak a ground in the iudgment of every prudent Conscientious man to hazard his Soul upon , as he must if he begin to Schismatize upon no better Grounds , he saw it could turn to his disgrace if he deny'd the notion given , or pretended that lesse Evidence would serve in a Controversy about Schism : nor durst he bee affirmative or approve of it , because he saw he had not produced one testimony in his whole book worth a straw , if it were brought to that Test , nor worthy to bestyled an Evidence . Wherefore being in this perplexity , and ( as the proverb is ) holding a Wolf by the ears , he recurs to his old Prevarications , and instead of approving or disapproving of my Description of an Evidence , tells me ( Answ . p. 58. ) what he meant by his own Evidences ; to wit , that he takes Evidence in the familiar vulgar notion for a testimony to prove any Question of Fact , either in the Affirmation or the nagative . But what kinde of Testimonies these must be which can serve in such a concerning discourse , whether such as I described heretofore , manifesting that the thing must be , or not be ; or probable ones , inferring onely that his Affirmative or Negative may be ; or whether these Testimonies need be proofs at all , but branches of accordance onely , or spoken in agreement ( as almost all the Testimonies he hath hitherto produced were ) he defines nothing . By his carriage in his book of Schism he seems to mean these latter onely ; nor do his words here exact more then onely a testimony , not expressing any thing at all concerning the quality of this testimony , whether the Authority of it must be valid , or invalid ; clear , or obscure ; expresse or dumbe ; entire , or maim'd with an Ellipsis ; originally proving , o● agreable onely ; set down right , or corrupted & falsified ; an Orthodox Fathers or an Arch-Heretick's ; all is one with Dr. H. still that testimony is one of his Vulgarly-Styl'd Evidences ; and so , vulgar & half-witted Souls will rely upon them in a Controversy importing no lesse then their eternall Salvation . In the same place of Schism Disarm'd Dr. H. was charg'd with prevaricating from his pretended promise , instead of bringing Evidence of his own , solving our pretended ones ; and that this was to sustain a different part in the dispute he first undertook ; to wit , the part of the Defendant , for so we used ever to style him who solved objections . He answers , that the one possible way to testify any negative is to take a view of the places the Affirmers pretend , and to shew that those places have no such force in them . Obserue these canting words [ the one possible way ] so handsomly preparing for an evasion , which though more likely to signify the onely possible way ( as Vnus is often taken for Solus in Latin ) yet he hath a glosse in readines to say he meant ' otherwise . But , because he puts not down the other 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. Calv●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 some account Rep. Sect. 8. n. 10. why hee had done us no injury in omitting it ; and indeed , 't is onely some account ; for he tells us there sleightly no more than this , that first , by the very position of it : but , secondly , more by the occasion ; and yet more , Thirdly , by the matter of the words that place is prejudged from being any more than an Exhortation to S. Peter to discharge his duty . But , is there no particularity in order to S. Peter ? An hard case , that after thrice saing , Simon Son of Ionas louest thou me ? more than these ? ( and there upon ) feed thou my sheep , nothing should be yet spoken in order to S. Peter in particular . The some account then , which Dr. H hath rendred us in the place related , is that he hath said there three things upon his own head & proved none of them ; which ( as I take it ) is to give no account at all . His answers to it in other places shall be replied to other where . Thirdly , he assures us that his reason of omitting it was by him with perfect truth rendred p. 93. from his full persuasion that it had so very litle appearance of Strength in it , and had been so often answer'd that it would not be deemed vsefull to any that hee should descend to it . Let us examin a litle Dr. H's perfect truth . I ask , had he reckon'd all the numerous places in Controvertists where this & other texts had been answet'd , & found that this had been far ofter replied to ? if he did not , how can he affirm it , or alledge this for his excuse ? if he did ) which I confesse is a task very proper for his ( Genius ) why does not he show us tables of accounts how many times the one , & how many times the other hath been vrged ? till which time , he gives us leave to beleeve that it is as incredible he hath done it , as it were ridiculous to have done it . Again , me thinks rea●on should tell him , that if it were oftner answered , it was oftner vrged ; and that it had not been oftner vrged without having some more appearance of truth in it , then the rest , which yet the other part of his excuse denies . If he say , that it was vrged more prevalently ; still , it will ly at his dore that it was more worthy his taking notice of : otherwise , to excuse himself , he indites his fellow-Protestan'●s of plain folly in answering that place oftner , which on the one side had very litle apperance of truth in it , and on the other side had been neither very often , nor very prevalently vrged . Fourthly , he asks if there be any farther invisible reserve in that place not taken notice of by M r Hart in the conference with Dr. Reynolds , I answer ; truly , I was not by ; nor shall I credit a relation which their own partiall Scribes writ , & their own partiall selves brag they have under the disputants hands ; it is as easy to counterfeit a hand , as to counterfeit a testimony ; If there be no such reserve , then Dr H. tells us he must remember the issue of that conference . And what was that ? That Mr Hart flew of from this text to that of Luke 22. v 31. from which being ( saith he ) soon beaten by evidence ( This Evidence , I conceive , was some nothing-proving branch of accordance like those Evidences of Dr. H's ) The poor Papist , if wee will beleeve his enemies , was put to conclude in these words . Yet , I know not how , me thinks I cannot be persuaded but that it maketh somewhat for Peter's Supremacy . Words so sillily unlikely , that the very rehearsall of them is enough to disgrace the whole relation , and the alledgers themselves . Nor is it lesse unlikely that M ▪ Hart should flie from this place of S. Iohn to that of Luke 22. v. 31. to prove S. Peter's Supremacy ; where nothing is found but onely this , Simon , Simon , be hold Satan hath desired to have you to sift you as wheat . I wonder now in which of these words Dr. Reynolds his friends will pretend Mr Hart placed the most force for S. Peter's Supremacy ; whether in the ordinary & common name Simon , in Satan , in Sifting , or in wheat . Is not this Dr. a great wit to bring such unauthoriz'd & unlikely trifles for his excuse ? yet necessity ( alas ) hath no law : He tells us here he must remember this wise Story ; as if it were such a necessary busines to give his reader a memorandum of a thing which he can never make good ; and is in it self the most unlikely truth and the likeliest fiction that can be imagined . Thirdly Dr. H. was charged of manifestly calumniating the Catholikes in calling their tenet cōcerning the power of the Keys a peculiarity & inclosure of S. Peter He goes about to discharge his credit and Conscience by shewing both from my words and the Catholike tenet that S. Peter had some particular power of Keyes , & sayes he mean't onely that this particular power was a peculiarity & inclosure of S. Peter . That the Catholike tenet , & consequently mine is that he had such a particular degree of power of the Keyes promised , and given him , I willingly gra●● and , had Dr. H. exprest so much there , he had not been charged with Calumny ; but if he exprest no such thing there , nay carried it so , as if wee had held that no Apostles had the Keyes but S. Peter , then all the emptie wordishnes in his Reply & Answer will avail nothing to clear him from so grosse a fault . Now , my reasons why I charged him with the said Calumny are these , because of Schism p. 86. Speaking of the Donation of the power of the Keyes in an unlimitted & universall expression , he says of himself , that this power Math. 16. 19. is promised to S. Peter ; by which words consequently he must mean the power of the Keyes in common ; for it is opposite to his tenet to say that any particular degree of that power was promised that Apostle . This done he puts down the text of Scripture , I will give unto thee the Keyes , &c. and then subjoyns these words . But to him that from hence pretends this Donative , & consequent power as a peculiarity & inclosure of S. Peter's , these considerations will be of force to supersede his conclusion . Now , what this Donative and power was meant of , is sufficiently exprest before , to wit the power of the Keyes in generall without any restriction or particularization . Wherefore , it is most manifest from his own words that he would have made the honest Reader beleeve our tenet was that the power of the Keyes in generall & common was S. Peter's peculiarity & inclosure . Secondly , one of his considerations to supersede our conclusion ( as he calls it ) were two places of Scripture , expressing onely that the Keyes were given to all the Apostles in common , but nothing at all that they were given equally to all ; wherefore they can no wayes impugn the inequality of S. Peter's having such a power , but onely S. Peter's having it alone ; since nothing can be imagin'd plainer 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 intēded 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 Sch●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 af●●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 at●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 S. Peter after a particularizing way , the promise was made to S. Peter after a particular manner . The antecedent I prove thus , those words were spoken to S. Peter after a manner not competible nor common to the rest of the Apostles ; therefore they were spoken to S. Peter after a particularizing way . The consequence is most evident , since particular , is expresly the same with not common or not competible to the rest . The Antecedent is proved no lesse evidently from the whole Series of the Text ; where we have first a particular Blessing of S. Peter , sprung from a particular act of his , to wit , his Confession of Christ's Divinity . Blessed art thou ; his particular name , and , to avoyd all equivocation which might communicate that name ▪ designing whose sonne he was , Simon Bar-Iona : my heavenly father hath revealed it vnto th●e , in particular . Next follows Christ's applying his words in particular here upon , And I say vnto thee ; then alluding to his particular name given him by Christ himself with an emphasis and energy , Thou ar● Peter ( or a Rock ) and upon this Rock will I build my Church , &c. And after all these particular designations follows the promise in the same tenour copulatively . And I will give vnto thee ( still with the same speciality ) the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven , and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven , and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven . Now , hence Iargue . The Confession of Christ to be the Son of God , the Blessing there-upon , The name Simon Bar-Iona , The designed allusion to that name , are not competible nor common to the rest of the Apostles ; therefore , the promise-expressing words concomitant were spoken to S. Peter in a way not common , or competible to the rest of the Apostles . But ( to returne whence wee came ) these words are a promise of the Keyes , and their power ; therefore a promise of the Keyes , and their power was made to S. Peter , after a manner not common , that is particular , and that upon occasions originally springing from , and constantly relating , and alluding to S. Peter's particular person and particular name . And thus much for the promise . Next , as for the performance of this particular promise , wee argue thus . It is worthy our Saviour , not onely to perform his promise , but also to perform it after the manner , and tenour he promised . But he promised the power of the Keyes to S. Peter after a particular manner , ( as hath been shown ) ●●erefore he perfo●med his promise , and gave it to S. Peter after a particular manner , and consequently ( which is the position wee vltimately aym at ) S. Peter had the power of the Keyes after a more particular manner then the other Apostles . The Major is evident ; because no man living would think himself reasonably dealt with if a promise were not performed to him after the manner it was made ; nay , reason would think himself deluded , to have his expectation raised ( as in prudence it would ) by such a particular manner of promising to something extraordinary , and more then common , and , when it comes to the point , to have his hopes defeated by a common , and meerly - equall performance . The Minor is already proved in the foregoing paragraph . The conclusion is the position in controversy . Reason therefore informs us , supposing once that the promise was made to S. Peter after a particular manner that it should be performed to him after the same manner , nor need 's it any other proof from Testimonies , if we once grant ( as none will deny ) that our B. Saviour did what was most reasonable , and fitting . Yet some of our Drs , arguing ad hominem against the Protestāt , make choice particularly of that place of Iohn 21. v. 15. 16. 17. to infer such a performance . I proceed therefore in the way I begun , and endeavour to show two things ; first that reason gives it , secondly that the Scripture favours it , that this place signifies a particularity of performance to S. Peter , or a performance to him after a particular manner . The first I prove ad hominem thus , the promise being made to S. Peter after a particular manner , and register'd in Scripture ( as hath been shown ) it is fitting that the correspōdent performance so worthy our Saviour should be exprest there likewise ; especially in the Protestant Grounds who grant a kind of self-perfectnes and sole-sufficiency to Scripture . But , there is no other place in Scripture so apt to signify a particular performance as this ( for the other places cited by Dr. H. Receive yee the Holy Ghost , & ●s my father sent me so send I you , expresse onely a common performance ) therefore in all reason wee should think that the particular performance is exprest there . The second I show thus , the particular promise had preceeded , apt in it's own Nature to breed some greater expectation in S. Peter . These words were apt to satisfy that expectation ; they signify'd therefore a particular performance ▪ Again , the thrice particularizing him by his name , and relation , Simon sonne of Ionas , denotes the speaking of the following words to him particularly . But the following words , pasce oves ineas , were apt , and sufficient to instate him in the Office , and give him the Authority of a Pastor : It was therefore given him in a particular manner to be a Pastour in these words . The Major is e●ident , the Minor is proved . For , should any Master of a family bid one of his servants in the same words feed his sheep , that servant would think him self sufficiently Authorized to perform that duty . Thirdly , the word amas me plus his , Dost thow love me more than these , manifestly put both a particularity , and a superiority in S. Peter above the other Apostles in the interrogatory : Therefore , the inference there-upon ; feed my Sheep , in ordinary reason should signify after the same manner , and sounds as if it were put thus , Dost thow love me more then these , to which S. Peter assenting , our Saviour may be imagin'd by the naturall sence of the words to reply , If it be so that thou lovest me more then these , then feed my Sheep more then these ; or , have thou a Commission to feed my Sheep more then these , sence he is more likely to perform his duty better , and so more capable and worthy of a higher charge who bears a greater affection to his Master . This paraphrase the words them selves seem to ground . For otherwise to what purpose was it to make an interrogation concerning a greater degree of love ? or , to what end was that particularizing , and perferring words [ more then these ] put there if they had no correspondent influence nor connexion with the inference which ensves upon it . Fourthly , the verb pasce being exprest imperatively , and spoken by a lord to his servant , ought in all reason to signi●y a Command , unles the concomitant words in the Text force another sence upon it , which cannot be alledged here . Since then every command of a lawfull Superiour gives a Commission to do that which he commands , and that the words expressing this command are most evidently by the circumstances in the Text , in a particular manner spoken to S. Peter , it follows that S. Peter had by them a particular Commission given him to feed Christ's flock , which is the thing to be proved . Fifthly , the property of the word pasce , as it is distinguished from praedicate shows that there was a kind of ordinary care commanded to S. Peter , whereas by the pure Apostleship he and his fellows had but an extraordinary and ( as it were ) a voyager Authority ; for , an Apostle might preach in many Cities ; but , to be Pastor he must fix himself in one Citie because he could be but a particular Pastor : But , S. Peter having for his charge , oves & Agnos , that is , all the faithfull , ●ould ●ever be out of his own Iurisdiction , so that being still in his seat , he needed not fix any where ; and , that he did so was 〈◊〉 abundanti ; Wherefore Praedicate being spoken in generall to all he Apostles ▪ pasce , to S. Peter onely , & pasce having an especiall force above Praedicate it follows that something was here given to S. Peter by that word , especially and particularly . This is , Reader , what I conceive follows gen●inly out of the Texts themselves , as explicable grammatically . Two things I desire both mine Adversary and thee to take notice of . The one , that we are not now disputing how the many-winded Commenters interpret this or that word ; but what follows out of the acknowledg'd words of the Texts , as managed by Grammaticall skill . Nor do I pretend to Evidence out of my own interpretation ( that is , Animating of dead words ) neither my cause needs it , nor can my own reason suffer me to engage soe far , assuring me how seldome demonstrations are to bee expected from the tossing of meer words ; My onely intent then ( as I tould thee at first ) was to show what I conceived most connaturally and probably follow'd out of these Texts , and their circumstances . Nor is it sufficient for mine Adversary to imagin that another explication may be invented . But ( since our contention now is , about what the words can-best bear ) he is to show that another can so connaturally agree to the same particularizing circumstances in the said Texts . And , if any man living can draw an argument out of the same words , more coherent with all the circumstances there found , and more connected in it self then mine is , nay from any other Text in Scripture , to show that S. Peter had no promise of the power of the Keyes made to him in a particular manner , and no performance of that promise in the same manner , in which is founded his superiority to the other Apostles , I will candidly confesse my self to have the worst in this wit-combat , and shall lay down the cudgells for the next comer . Sect. 3. Dr. H's solutions or contrary explications of those two places of Scripture , sustain'd by most senceles paralogisms , and built onely upon his own sayings ; nor shown nor attempted to bee shown more naturally consequent from the Texts themselves and their circumstances . AGainst , this inference of mine from the words of these Texts Dr. H. never goes about to show from the force of the same words a more connaturall explication , which is the onely method to show his advantage over us in Scripture ; but , in stead thereof , endeavours onely to enervate our deductions thence by some solutions gather'd here and there . Now , this method of proceeding had been allowable , in case we had built our faith upon such wit originiz'd explications ; or , if in trying our acutenes with them in their own wordish way we had pretended to evidence or conclude demonstratively that this must be the sence of those places ; for then indeed any may be otherwise , which they could imagin , would have destroy'd our must be so ; and wee were bound in that case to maintain our explication against any other , not onely which the words might be pretended to favour , but what the most voluntary dreamer could fancy . But , since wee pretend not to evidence or conclude demonstratively thence , and onely intend to show out of the force of the words that our exposition is more probable , and connaturall ; he hath noe way to overcome in these circumstances , but by showing us another out of the force of the same words more probable and connaturall ; which since he never attempts to do ( as far as I can see ) 't is plain he is so far from having acquitted him self in that point that he hath not so much as gone about it ; and all the voluntary solutions and possibilities of another explication he hath produced out of his owne f●cy without endeavoring to shew them more naturall out of the force of the Texts , are so little to the purpose , that they are not worth answering . Yet wee shall glean them up from the places in which he hath scattered them , and give them , which is more then their due , a cursory reflection . Solution 1. The words of the Commission were delivered in common to all the Apostles . Of Schism p 87. l. 2. Reply . The delivering them in common evinces no more but that each Apostle had the power of the Keyes ; but , leaves it indifferent whether each had it equally or in equally ▪ since it expresses neither ; nor is there any so silly as not to see that mo●e persons may have the same thing yet one of those may have it in a more particular manner than the rest . Now then , since wee have a place of Scripture expressing a promise of the Keyes in a particularising manner to S. Peter , how can the other places of a common delivery prejudice the having them more especially ; since it abstracts from having them equally , or inequally ; and so is indifferent to and consistent with either . Solution 2. They are delivered equally to all and every of the Apostles , as is evident by the plurall style throughout that Commission . Of Schism p 87. l. 2. 3. 4 5. Reply . To think that a bare plurality can prove ; much less evidence an equality is such a peece of bedlam like non-sence that I wonder the silliest old wife should be gulld with such an affected peece of foolery . Paul's , and Pancras by this Logick must be equall , because they are both in the plurall call'd Churches ; nay every peece of the world's frame is a mani●est instance a●a●nst this paralogism ; since in every species in Nature the particulars or individualls are plurally styled by the same word , and agree in the same generall notion , though there be hundreds , sometimes thousand degrees of inequality between them . Yet this infinitely weake reasoner hath ( as I dare undertake to show ) above fourty times made this argument against us ; and to surpasse his otherwise unparaleld'self , he calls it an evidence . Were it not pretty to put some parallels to this peece of Logick , and make Dr. H. argue thus . Constables and Kings are in the plurall styled Magistrates . ergo ( cryes the Dr. ) it is evident they are both equall ; A Captaine and a Generall are both plurally styld Commanders ; ergo ( concludes the Dr. ) it is evident they are equally such . The like argument he hath made heretofore for the equality of Apostles , pillars , foundation-stones , &c. because all of each sort were named by one plurall name . Pardon me then Reader if I have given such a harsh character to this monstrous peece of Logick I professe I know not what better name to call it by truly ; and , besides other considerations , I cannot but resent it in the behalf of man's nature Which is Reason , and am angry with Dr. H. in his owne behalf that he hath by his passion , and interest so totally defaced it in him self as to produce that for an evidence which is so far from the least degree of probability that it is the greatest impossibility imaginable . But especially , when I see that the same person who acknowledges Schism greater then sacriledge , or idolat●y , would persuade rationall Souls into it by such putid non-sence , I confesse , I cannot contain my expressions from taking such liberties , as truth and Iustice make lawfull , but the concernement of my cause necessary . Solution 3. Each single Apostle had this power as distinctly promised to him as S. Peter is pretended to have , and the words of Scripture , Math. 18. v. 18. are most clear for that purpose . Of Schism p. 88. Reply , there is not a word there expressing any distinction in order to any other Apostle , much lesse singularizing each of them distinctly as you here pretend but a common and plurall donation onely whatsoever you shall binde , &c. and , as for your Syllogism by which you would evade the shamelesnes of this assertion Answ . p. 66. by saying that you mean't onely the Apostles were each of them singly to have and exercise the power of the Keyes , and not all together in common , or joyn'd together in Communion ; first , neither agrees with your other words , for it is one thing to say each could distinctly use that power , another thing to say as you ( of Schism p. 8● . l. 13. 14. ) this power was distinctly promised to each of them , and then quoting , Math. 18. v. 18. as most clear for that purpose where nothing is found but a cōmon expression whatsoever yee shall binde on earth shall be bound in heaven , &c. without any distinction at all exprest . Nor can such a pretended meaning stand with common sense , unles the Dr. will confesse him self to have calumniated our tenet , which imputation he hath before taken such pains to avoid ; for either it is put in opposition to us , or not ; if not , what does it there , or to what end are all those testimonies brought of Schism p. 89 to second it ? If it be put in opposition to us , and yet mean onely ( as Dr. H. says here ) that it was promised to all the Apostles as to twelve single persons each singly to have and exercise it , and not all together in common ; then our tenet must necessarily be supposed and pretended by him to be , that no single Apostle could bind or loose , but all of them together in common onely which is so manifest a calumny that himself dares not openly own it , though he slily impose it ; as he did the other about the Keyes being S. Peter's inclosure . Yet it is as necessarily his , as the excuse given is his ; which if he disclame he acknowledges the objected fault . Solution 4. The addressing the speech to S. Peter in the singular is a token onely that Peter as a single person should have power , but not , either that no others should have it too ( observe Reader how the calumny he formerly would have acquitted himself of , still sticks to him ) or that the manner in which S. Peter should have it should be singular to him , and so as it was not to each of them , Answ . p. 64. 65 Reply , this is onely your own saying ; show us out of the words themselves that this is more probable , as I show'd the contrary , and then I shall acknowledge that you have animated the dead letter more artificially then I ; otherwise you have done nothing : for the question is not whether you can say so , or no ; but whether the words oblige you to say so . Solution 5. The particularity , gives him particularly the power , but excludes not others from the same power and the same degree of power . Answ . p. 65. Reply . This is onely said again , not shown that the words gave occasion to say it , which was onely to be done . He quotes indeed drily the places of Scripture , yet puts down no words , as his custome is , but talks before and after the barren and unapply'd citations what he pleases . Wee take the words of the Text , debate them minutely and particularly , and bring them home to the point , to show that our tenet of a more particular powre is more probable out of their native force . Let him do the like and show by the same method his explication more connaturall then mine and I shall grant he won the field in this probability-skirmish . Himself will not deny that S. Peter had as much promis'd him as the rest when it was promis'd in common , Math. 18. v. 18. The having then over and above this common promise at another distinct time and with most particularizing and distinguishing circumstances a promise of he same Keyes ; most manifestly is a priviledge peculiar to S. Peter , and that on which wee ground the probability of having them promis'd in a particular manner , and consequently performed in the same sort ; which wee make accoūt wee find with the like particularities Io. 21. Let the Reader then observe what countenance the words , Grammatically & prudentially scann'd , give to our explications and deductions , and expect what other explication , so well circumstanc'd , Dr. H. can deduce of the same words taken in their own native force and energy , not what he will say upon his owne head . Solution 7. The speciall energy of the applying the words particularly to S. Peter , concludes that the Ecclesiasticall power of aeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house belongs to single persons , such as S. Peter was , and not onely to Consistories , or Assemblies . Of Schism p. 87. Reply . This is still your own saying without ever endeavoring to show from the words , and their circūstances , they persuade that this is the sense of them . But , let it be so that you have evinc't against the Presbyterians from this place that a community must not govern but a Bishop , that is , one who is Superiour to that community ; who sees not how much better , and more probably it follows hence that S. Peter was Superior to the consistory of the Apostles ( they being present when those particularizing words were spoken , whence Dr. H. proves the Episcopall Authority over the consistory ) then it will follow that in succeeding times , and distinct circumstances , some one should be chief and over the Assembly . Again , the words not being expresse for his position , he can onely make a parallell deduction thence after this sort , if he will argue from the words , that the same should be observed in a Bishop and his consistory afterwards , which was I deated in this first consistory of the Apostles ; wherefore , since Dr. H. grants no higher degree of Authority in S. Peter than in the rest of the Apostles , he can conclude no more but this , that the Presbyters are all equall in Authority , as the Apostles were ; that is , there ought to bee no more-highly-authoriz'd Bishop over them , but onely that one of those equally-dignify'd Presbyters ought to sit , talk , or walk before the rest , according to Dr. H's explication of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by Primacy of order . Thus whiles the Dr. disputes from this place against the Presbytery , he falls into Popery . As for what he tells me here that it is the interest of S. W. as well as of the Protestants to mantain this point against the Presbyterians who a lone can gain by the questioning it . I answer , that I love the Presbyterians so well as not to wish them renounce their reason , that is , man's nature , which they must doe if they assent to what the Protestants say upon a probability onely , nay a totally improbable , and rather opposit Text. Nor should I wish them so much hurt , as to beleeve Episcopacy , unles I made account the Catholick Church was able to give them rigorously convincing evidence for her Authority asserting it , which is impossible the Protestants should do , unles they plow with our heifer , and recur to our Rules of faith , universall Tradition , so oft renounc'd by them for other points . Observe , Reader , that I had shown his explication of this place of Scripture against the Presbyterians to make unavoidably against thim self , Schism Disarm'd p. 95. In reply to which dangerous point ( Answ . p. 66 ▪ par . 16. ) he onely calls my reasons expressions of dislike to his argument against Presbytery , that it is not pertinent to the question , that it hath not ( as he supposes ) any show of the least di●ficulty in it and so ends . As if my showing that our tenet follows more naturally out of the words , even as explicated thus by him self , were onely an expression of dislike , impertinent to our question , or had not , if proved , any show of the least difficulty in it ; yet he braggs at the end of this Section , that he hath attended me precisely and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 step by step , though he makes when he spies danger such large skips over me . Solution 8. The words , feed my Sheep , are nothing but an ●xhortation to discharge that duty to which he was befor● commissionated . Rep. p. 68. par . 10. p. 63. Reply , had he ever a particular Commission given him , correspondent to the particularizing promise , but here ? or was not the word pasce spoken imperatively by a Master to his servant as apt to signify a Commission as the words , Goe teach all Nations , were ? how then appears it from the words that this was onely an exortation ? and , if it does not , what is it more then Dr. H's own saying ? Solution 9 The circumstances in the Text can never work a change in the matter , an inculcated , expresse , particulariz'd explication , introduc'd with a question to quicken , and impresse it can never be converted by these accumulation● into a Commission for supremacy . Answ . p. 63. Reply , first you must show that the words persuade it was onely an Exhortation ; else all this and your following discourse falls to the ground . Next , such particularizing circumstances to S. Peter in the presence of the rest are apt in their owne nature to make him or any man living ready to apprehend that the thing promised belonged to him in a particular manner : els to what end serv'd they , would no● a common promise have sufficed if this had not been intended ? Thirdly , there needed no converting the signification of the pasce from an Exhortation into a Commission of Supremacy . The word was apt before of it self to signify a Commission ; the accumulation of particularizing circumstances gave it to signify a particular Commission . Let the reader examin Dr. H. by what force of the words he proves t' is an exhortation onely , since the words themselves are words of Commission , there being nothing proper to a meer exhortation in them . And as for the Drs parallell here that ( Christ's praying the same prayer thrice did not make it cease to be a prayer and commence a precept , t 's soe silly as a sillier cannot be imagin'd ; since neither the words of Christ's prayer are apt to be converted from a praying to a commanding signification ; nor was it likely or possible that Christ should impose precepts upon his heavenly father to whom he pray'd , as he could upon S. Peter , not lastly is it onely the thrice saying that wee build upon , as abstracted from all the other particularising circumstances but the thrice saying a precept , and a precept thus exprest . Solution 10. The asking him thri●e , lovest thou me , made S. Peter no doubt deem it a reproach of his thrice denying his Master . Answ . p. 63. The Text saith , Peter was greeved , because he said vnto him the third time , Lovest thou me , which Sure he would not have been , if he had looked on it as an introduction to so great a preferment . Reply : Dr. H. hath here at unawares bewray'd what kinde of Spirit he is of ; who makes account that the getting some great preferment is a ground of more gladnes then our Saviours seeming to doubt of his love to him would be occasion of sorrow . But he shall give me and all good Christians ●eave to think that good S. Peter was of another temper ; and that he valued the good opinion of his Master , questioning so much his love to him , above the attainment of any dignity imaginable . Though I must confesse Dr. H's Noe doubt , and Sure , upon which all depends , are two sure cards , were they authoris'd by any thing besides his own words ; and , 't is a very competent answer with him to say he is sure , and there is no doubt but that S. Peter gap't so much after a preferment that he car'd not , in comparison of it , what opinion his B. Master had of him , in order to his loving him . Again , how do the words soe put it beyond all doubt that the asking him thrice , lovest thou mee , was deemed by S. Peter a reproach of his thrice deniall ; whereas the Text tells us that S. Peter was fully persuaded of his Masters knowledge of his love , and confidently appeal'd to that knowledge , Lord thou knowest all things , thou knowest that I love thee . Nor have wee any ground to think that S. Peter apprehended his sweet Master so cruell as to upbraid a forgiven sin , especially seeing the return of so much love in the breast of his dear Disciple . If Dr. H. pretend that it was to excite in him a greater care of Christ's flok , the words indeed give countenance to it . But then it should be ask'd what necessity was there of exciting a greater care in S. Peter in particular ? had he shown him self of soe negligent a nature as to give occasion of doubt that he was not likely without this exciration to perform well this particular charge ? or rather , did not his whole carriage demonstrate the quite contrary that he was ever most zealous , vehement , and hot to prosecute any thing he went about ? What reason then there could be of a particular incitement to S. Peter to perform and look well to his charge , more than to the rest without some particularity in his charge more than in the rest , passes reason to imagin ▪ The force therefore in this thrice repetition of lovest thou me in all probability and according to the words rationally explicated , wee make to bee this ; that since it is ever the method of God's sweet providence to dispose and fit the person for the charge , ere he imposes the charge it self , and the best disposition to perform any charge with exact diligence is a greater affection towards the person who imposes it , our Saviour , by asking S. Pe●ter thrice in that tender manner lovest thou me more then these , lovest thou me , excited and stirred up in him a greater affection , both to dispose him at present for the particularly-exprest charge of feeding his Sheep , and also to minde him for the future upon what terms and conditions , and with what dear and tender expressions he had pledged vnto him the care of his flock . This explication , I say , of that thrice asking wee think most connaturall and consonant to the Text , as rationally scann'd according to what is most befitting the divine wisedom ; by which rule or any other principle had Dr. H. guided himself in stead of recurring to and relying upon meerly his owne fancy for his voluntary explications , I hope he would have been of the same minde too . Solution 11. Wee need seek no other performance of this promise than that which was at once afforded all the Apostles together . As , suppose a Generall should promise a Commission this day to one , and to morowe should make the like promise to Eleven more , that one being in their company , and then , upon a set day some weeks after , should se●● twelve Commissions to those twelve , one for each of them , I wonder who would doubt of the exact performance of this promise to that first , or seek for any more speciall performance of it Reply p. 67. Reply : Dr. H. pretends a parallell , and yet ▪ leaves all that in which the force of the parallell was to be put , taking the common and indifferent circumstance onely . First he puts the supposition that a Generall should promise a Commission this day to one , but he omits all that in which wee place the strength of our argument , to wit , that the Generall should promise the said Commission to that one in a manner of expression not competent or competible to the rest , as he did here , sounding an advantage over the rest in his desert , his confessing of Christ's Godhead by the revelation of his heavenly father ; with such allusion● to his name , and other particularisations , as in all prudence are apt to breed an expectation of something particular in the thing promised . He should have made his Generall have promist a Commission to one in this manner , and then the answer had been , that that one man so manifoldly particulariz'd , and , as it were , call'd and singled out from the rest in their owne presence , had no reason to think himself ingenuously deal't with , if his acknowled'g desert being particular , and the promise there upon so particularly directed to him , and him alone at that time , he had received an equall Commission onely , that is , such a one as was common to all the by standers , and not particular at all to himself . Next , Dr. H's following words , suppose this Generall should to morrow make the like promise to eleven more , that one being in their company , hath two equivocations in it ; the one in the words , the like promise ; by which if he means the promise of the same common thing , to wit the power of the Keyes , t' is granted ; but , if he mean's ( as he ought , this being the thing in controversy , and the sence best suting with that word ) that the like promise denotes a promise made after th● same manner , and apt to breed no more nor higher expectation of the thing to be given then if it had been exprest 〈◊〉 common onely then 't is palpably false and flatly deny'd . The next equivocation lies in these words , suppose he should make a promise to eleven more ▪ that one being in their company ; by which one would think that S. Peter who had it promised particularly before , had it not promised again in common now , but onely stood by at this time while it was promis'd to the other eleven . By which device he hath avoided another point in which wee put force , and left it out in his parallell ; and 't is this , that S. Peter went a breast with the rest in having the common promise made to him as well as they had ; and exceeded or was preferr'd before them in this priviledge , that , over and above his common promise , hee had a promise made to him at other times particularly and in a particularizing manner , so that the Drs similitude hath not so much as one foot left to hop on , that is , it resembles no part of the point as it is in question betveen us , nor touches at all the controverted difficulty , and is all one as if , going about to paint Cesar , he should draw onely the rude lineaments common to all mankind , and omit all the particular proportions and colours which were proper to delineate that person . But the Dr. makes up his similitude by supposing twelve Commissions sent to the twelve Captains , in which he would subtly have his Reader suppose the Commissions were equally ; for , if they were unequall it would prove iust contrary to his pretence . But what he mean's by his seal'd Commissions , or how he thinks this is verified in the Apostles , wee shall ere long discusse when he declares his meaning in it . Dr. H's parallell having thus lamely play'd it's part , let me see if I can make another more pat , and expresse then his was . Suppose then the late King of England , as head of the Church there , could have made , and had been to create Bishops all over England ; and had already cast his eye particularly upon some one particular person so far as to give him in particular the sir name of Bishop ( as he did S. Peter the name Cephas , a Rock ) this done , upon occasion of a particular service of his first acnowledging or confessing him King ( which wee may suppose not to have been then acknowledged ) he breaks out into those parallell expressions . Happy art thou N. N. who , when others weakly doubt of my Royalty dost out of a particular affection to me acknowledg me King ; and I say vnto thee , Thou art Bishop , and upon this Bishop I wil build the Church of England , and thus built it shall stand strong against all opposition ; and J will give vnto thee the power of binding & loosing and whatsoever fault against our 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 cōscience 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 , p●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 of that particular Section is , De adventu filij hominis ad iudicium in maiestate sua , of the comming of the son of man to iudgment in his maiesty . After this follows the Text which he is to interpret to mean the time of the regeneration by grace according to Dr. H. put down thus , Canon 28. Cum autem venerit filius hominis in maiestate sua & omnes Angeli cum eo , & reliqua . But when the son of man shall come in his maiesty , and all his Angels w●th him , and the rest . This seems very ominous to Dr. H's interpretation of this place for the regeneration by grace ; and to relate as expresly to the day of judgment as words can signify . But let us proceed to the Authours own words , upon which Dr. H builds . De iudicij tempore aduentuque commemorat quo fidelis ab infidelibus separabit , atque ab infructuosis fructuosa discernet , hoedos , viz. ab agnis , & in dextrâ & sinistrâ collocans , vnumquemque dignà aut bonitatis aut malitiae suae sede constituet . He speaks of the comming and time of iudgment , in which he will separate the faithfull from the infidells , discern the fruitfull from the vnfruitfull , to wit , the goats from the Lambs , and placing them on his right hand , and his left , shall set every one in the seat of his goodnes , or wickednes . And now I appeal to the judgment of the most partiall friend of Dr. H. whether this be not to renounce all shame , honesty , and conscience , respect to his Readers , care of his own and other men's salvations , to name fathers as vouching his explication , so expressly opposit to it , that 't is impossib●e to invent words more fully signifying mine , more palpably contradicting his interpretation . His third testimony from Author imperfecti operis upon the words sedebitis & vos &c you also shall sit upon twelve thrones , &c. afford's us first this comment ; futurum autem erat vt in die iudicij responderent Iudaei , &c. It was to happen in the day of judgment that the Iews would answer , Lord wee did not know thee the Sonne of God when thou wast clad with thy body vos respondeb●tis , &c. yee shall answer ; wee also were men as you are , &c. Thus he literally . But , wee will grant that this Author whoever he was ( for he is not certainly known ) more inclin'd to the mysticall sence ; and wee pardon Dr. H. at present that extreme weaknes of dogmatizing not upon the literall , but mysticall sence of an interpreter , let us see whether ( though in that one point of relating to the resurrection it bee for him according to the said mysticall sence yet whether ) in all the rest it be not expressly against him , and absolutely inconsistent with his whole doctrine . His transition from the literall to the mysticall sence is this . Adhuc autem audeo subtiliorem introducere sensum , & sententiam sapientis cuiusdam viri referre . But I dare be so bold as to introducere a more subtil sence , and relate the opinion of a certain wise man ; that , as the people of the Iews were divided into twelve tribes secundum quasdam proprietates animorum , & diuersitates cordium , quas solus Deus disce●n●re & cognoscere potest ; according to certain propenties of their minds , and diuersities of their hearts , which onely God can discern and know ; that some should be , as it were , of the tribe of Ruben , others of the tribes of Simeon , Levi , or Iuda , &c. Omnes autem in quibus habitat Christus , sedes sunt Christi . All Christians , in whom Christ dwells , are the seat of Chr●st - then coming to his mysticall explication of the day of judgment , he hath these words ; in sedem autem , &c. Christ begun to sit in the seat of his maiesty ever since the Gentiles begun to beleeve in him ; wherefore , since the time that Christ sit upon the seat of his maiesty , the Apostles also sit upon twelve thrones , that is , in all Christians , secundum diuersita●es animorum quos supra tetigimus , according to the diversity , of minds which wee have touched before-Omnis enim , &c. For every Christian which receives the word of Peter is the throne of Peter , and Peter sits in him ; so also they are they thrones of all the Apostles who have received and keep in themselves the doctrine of all the Apostles-Sic ergo , &c. So therefore , the Apostles sitting in Christian thrones , distinguished into twelve parts , according to the differences of Souls , judge the twelve tribes of Israël , that is , all the Iews . For when the words of the Apostles judge the Iews , also the Apostles themselves seem to judge them . Hence . Note first that Dr. H. makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify an Episcopall chaire , whereas this Author , who was brought to second him , makes it signify any Christian soul that receives Christ's faith . Note secondly , that these twelve parts of Christianity , subject to the twelve Episcopall chairs of the Apostles , are , according to Mr. H's doctrine , twelve lesser Provinces , distinguish't and appointed by Apostolicall consent ; whereas this Author makes them onely , to be differenced by the diversity of their Spirits , and Souls . Note thirdly that if governing and presiding in twelve Episcopall chairs bee signified here ( as he pretends ) it follows that the Apostles governd and presided over they knew not whom ; for these twelve parts of Christianity ( according to this Author ) are distinguish't secundum diuersitates animorum , according to diversities of minds , quas solus Deus discernere & cognoscere potest , which onely God can discern , and know ; and this Author makes here the Apostles sitting upon twelve thrones , to bee their sitting in all Christians ●ccording to this diversity of minds . Note fourthly , that he makes the Apostles sitting in them to bee their receiving the Apostles doctrine ; that is , there being converted by them ; whic● Dr H. told us before ( Answ . p. 51. l. 25. 26. ) was nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction . Note fifthly , that their being judged by the Apostles , which Dr. H. makes to signify their being governed by them ; is explicated by this Author to be this ; that the Apostles thaught them their doctrine , and put their words in them , by which they were judged ; not that they sit in Episcopall chairs , ruled , and presided , as Governors preside , as the Dr expresses himself , Answ . p. 67. l. 25. Note sixthly , that this place cannot be pretended to relate more properly ▪ and really to the time immediately after Christ's resurrection than the concomitant circumstances already scann'd , really and properly signify those things they mysticall allude to ; since ●he agreeing of them to this explication is that which sustains and countenances it : Seeing then it is a madnes to pretend that a Christian soul is really , and properly , a throne of an Apostle , that those twelve partes of Christianist's whose distinction is unknown to the Apostles should bee really and properly ●welve Provinces to bee governed by their Episcopall presiding , or that their planting ( Christ's doctrine in their hearts should be really and properly to judge and preside over them ; so it is equally a madnes to pretend that the Apostles life time ( and not the day of ●udgment ) is signified here really and properly ; since , the word it self not necessarily denoting it , this interpretation is onely built upon the applicablenes of the circumstant expressions ; which being all mysticall , and improper , cannot make it proper and literall but mysticall , and improper onely . Thou seest then , Protestant Reader , to w●●t rare Drs thou entrustest thy hopes of salvation , who either bring Testimonies for their tenet , which is most expressively against them , when the Author speaks literally ; or els dogmatize upon a mysticall sence , and pretend 't is mean't really . Which method were it follow'd there is no such contradictions in the world but might be made rare truths . The testament given in Mount sina would be really a woman , and ●gar , Abraham's handmaid . Gal. 4. v. 25. Christ's doctrine would be reall corne ; preaching would be reall sowing ; men would bee in reality meere vegetables ; the good , wheat ; by bad , tares ; Heaven nothing in reality but a barn ; the Angels would be really reapers , and sweaty tann'd country-drudges , with sickles , rakes and forks in their hands preaching , loding into carts , driving home , and unloading into this barn mens Souls by Dr. H's learned Metamorphosis ( far out-vying Opid's ) turn'd really into meere Vegetables , and so many grains of wheat . These and millions of others perhaps greater absurdities might an Atheist object to Christianity , and make it the most ridiculous absurdity nay the perfectest madnes that ever abus'd the world , by interpreting mysticall things really ; that is , by following Dr. H's method here ; who , out of a place evidently mysticall , and so exprest by the Author , deduces dogmatically as a reall truth that the promise was made for twelve reall , and properly called thrones , for each Apostle to si● on one , to rule , and preside in the Church in the Apostles time And , were it worth the pains to looke for the omitted place in S. Austin , I doubt not but wee should finde it of the same mysticall strain in some Homily , or other : for he writ no comments upon S. Mathew ( that I know of from whence wee may certainly expect such a literall explication . Sect. 5. How Dr. H. goes about to prove the donation of equall power from the Descent of the Holy Ghost and from fathers , by an heap of weaknesses ; contrad●ction of his own , calumnies of our tenet ; forg●ries of his Advers ary's sence and words , denying his own ; avoydings to answer , and other shuffling impertinencies . IT follows in Dr. H. of Schism p. 88. in the half-side of a leaf , parenthesis , and when that promise ( to wit of twelve Episcopall thrones ) was fina●ly performed in the descent of the Spirit . Act. 2. the fire that represented that Spirit was divided , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , sate upon every one of them , without any peculiar mark allow'd S. Peter , and they were all filld ' with the Holy Ghost , and so this promise equally performed , as it was made , to all . Observe , Reader , these words particularly ; and then I an confident if thou knowst what Controversy is , thou with pity me for being task to answer such a dreamer . Here is not a word here which even seems to make against us but these , without any particular mark allow'd to S. Peter , and the having the Holy Ghost equally ; neither of which are , or can be prov'd by any man living ( for who can see man's heart , or know in what degree he hath the Holy Ghost , but God onely ? or who can tell us now that S. Peter had no peculiar mark , or greater tongue of fire , than the rest , as the wise Dr. pretends and builds upon , nothing being recorded either pro , or con , concerning that impertinent curiosity . Nor can these ridiculous arguments seem in the least sort to make against S. Peter's higher Authority , and our tenet , but by supposing Dr. H's false , and weak principle to bee true , that none can be higher in Authority but he must necessarily have more of the Holy Ghost in him . As for all the other words , they nothing at all concern our purpose , or impugn our present tenet ; since wee hold that each Apostle had the promise made , had a performance of that promise , that the fiery tongues sate on every of them , &c. And , as for his saying that this promise of twelve thrones was finally performed in the descent of the Holy Ghost , though it be most miserably weak , ( as shall be shown ) yet it nothing at all impugns us ; inducing onely that each Apostle had power in the Church , which wee voluntarily grant . To answer these phantastick toyes the better , I will take the whole peece a sunder into propositions , and impugn them singly . The first proposition is , that the promise of the twelve thrones of Episcopall presidency was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit . Observe , Reader , that our question is about Authority and Iurisdiction ( as Dr. H's chairs to rule and preside in tells thee ) and then ask Dr. H. whether it was ever heard of before in this world that the coming of the Holy Ghost gave Iurisdiction or Authority to the Apostles , but zeal , charity , knowledge , courage , vigor , strength , and such other gifts onely . See the Scripture , Luke 24. 49. Tarry yee in Hierusalem untill yee be endued , virtute ex alto , that is , with power , or powerfulnes , efficaciously to prosecute what they were a ready design'd and commissioated for ; not , till you have finally Authority and Iurisdiction given you . Again , the Holy Ghost fell upon all the 120. as appears by Act. 1. and upon multitudes both of men and women in many places and occasions afterwards , and yet , no man ever dream'd that they got by this means any Authority , or Iurisdiction But to show the absurdity of this conceit there needs no more but to reflect upon the Drs words . He sayes that the promise of twelve thrones of presidency or ●●welve Episcopall chairs ( as he expresses him self A●sw . p. 67. was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit , if so , then the Holy Ghost consecrated the twelve Apostles actually Bishops , for the finall performan●e is the actuall giving a thing , and the thing , to be given then , is by him exprest to be twelve Episcopall chairs : wherefore actually then , and not before , the Apostles were made Bishops , and had so many Episcopall chairs given them : so pretty a foolery that laughter is it's properest confutation . But , to mend the iest , himself in other places strenously defends that the distinction of the Apostles presidencies of Provinces by Apostolicall agreement long after the coming of the Holy Ghost , as appears by the place Gal. 2. on which hee relies . And , if we should ask him how there could be twelve Episcopall chairs to rule , and preside in without twelve sorts of subjects to be presided over , and ruled , that is , twelve Bishopricks ; and then ask him again where those twelve distinct Bishopricks were at the coming of the Holy Ghost , I know the good man , in 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 ●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 expres●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 ma●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 ough● 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 a●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 wh●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 inte●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 inf●r , and conclude the other whereas the intended point is expressely put down in my words now repeated by him self to wit , that S. Peter had in a peculiar manner the Holy Ghost ; and the necessary connexion of this with his higher Authority expressly disclaim'd in the place even now cited . Thirdly after he had repeated my whole discourse , he subjoyn's immediately , here was one honest word the ( perhaps . ) As if our Saviour's words out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh , and those others of the Scripture that S. Peter converted three thousand by his first Sermon were all dishonest words . But , since I intended onely to give the Dr. some satisfaction , of which ( knowing his humor ) I was not certain why was it not honester to expresse my self ambiguously then to cry a loud , Certainy , surely , no doubt , unquestionably , irrefragably , as Dr. H. does all over before his Testimonies ; whereas , all is obscure , uncertain , falsified , not a word in them sounding to the purpose , as hath been shown all over this book . It may be the Reader may accound Dr. H. the greater wit for using such confident , and loud-crying expressions when there is so litle wooll , but I hope he will thinke S. W. the honester man for speaking withim compasse . Fourthly , he sayes that the Dr. ( meaning himself ) may not be satisfy'd thence that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner , to which he addes of his own falsifying invention , or was designed head of the Apostles , as if I had pretended this either as equivalent , or necessarily consequent out of the former whereas he knows I absoluty disclaimed against him any such pretence ; This done without having afforded owne word of answer or sence , he bids us farewell in these words , I shall answer it no further then by repeating . Good night good Dr. But to let the Reader see how much stronger my [ perhaps ] is than the Drs surely , I will briefly put doun the import of this late proof ad hominem ; and 't is this , that since out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks : 't is probable that S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in his heart more abundantly or in a higher degree , since he first exprest it 's interiour motions by speaking , and speaking soe vigorously , and powerfully : Now then , since , in Mr. H's Grounds , the receiving the holy Ghost seald the Commissions of the Apostles , and finally performed the promise of their ruling , and presiding in the Church whence he contended also that all had this promise equally performed , that is , according to him , had equally the Holy Ghost lest one should exceed ano●her in Iurisdiction ; it follows unavoidably ad hominem it against him , that if be probable S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in an higher degree , it is probable likewise that he had a higher rule , and presidencie in the Church performed to him . The argument bearing this sence , who sees not 't is Dr. H's task to let us knowe why this so early and vigorous pouring forth argued not a fuller measure of the Holy Ghost within ? what does he ? He calumniates me to bring this as a cl●ar evidence , putting the words , clear evidence in other letters , as if thay had bene mine ; falsifies my known pretence twice , calls the word [ perhaps ] the one honest words ; says the Dr. may not be satisfie'd by the reason alledged that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner ; and then , in stead of telling us why he may not be satisfie'd , immediately concluding that he shall not answer it further than by repeating it . Thus Dr. H's reason , like some sorry creature , taken tardy in a tale , first mutters , and stammers , as if it would say something or were hand-bound with some bad excuse ; but , seing it could make no coherence , at length very honestly hands down it's head , and sayes iust nothing . The fourth proposition is , And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost , which he tells us here , was sure no distinct argument of his . But , why it should not be as good , and sole suffi●ient a proof as this , that the fire was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( as he pedantizes it ( sate on every one of them , which he called Answ . p. 68. l. 3. an argument of somevalidity ▪ I had no ground in the world to imagin ; both of them equally impugning our tenet , that is , not at all . For wee equally grant that each single Apostle had power giuen him , to bind , and loose , or Authority in the Church ( which he without any ground will have signified by the division of this fire ) as wee do that they were all filled with the Holy Ghost . The fifth and last proposition immediately follows the former , and is this ; and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all ; that is , all had equally the Holy Ghost ; and this is pretended as deduced out of the fourth ▪ saying that they were all full of it . Schism Disarm . p. 98. showd the weaknes of this arguing from fulnes to equality by the instances of our Saviour & Barnabas , who are both said in Scripture to be full of the Holy Ghost , as also of the saints in heaven being full of glory , though there were an inequality between them in those respects ; and , by the parallell ridiculousnes of the plow man's silly argument , who concluded alleggs equall , and that none had more meat in it than another , because all were full . To take of these exceptions , and strengthen his feeble argument , the Dr. offers nothing ; though he braggs at the end of the Section that he hath attended me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely he tells us here p. 69 gentily that he is not concern'd to doubt but that they which are full of the Holy Ghost may have it unequally if by unequally be meant the inequality of divine endowments . How he is concern'd to doubt it , shall be seen presently ; in the meane time let us reflect on his other words , and ask him what is meant by the Holy Ghosts abiding in the Souls of the faithfull ? or by what other way he imagins him to be there than by divine endowmēts onely . I hope he thinks not that the Holy Ghost is hypostatically united to them or incarnate in them . An inequality then of divine endowments is all the inequa'ity which can be imagin'd in this matter ; and thefore , if any inequality prejudice Dr. H's tenet he is concern'd to avoid this . Now , how much it concerns Dr. H's circumstances to avoid an inequality of the Holy Ghosts being in the Apostles , is as plain as it is that it concerns him to say any thing to the question , and not talk onely in the aire . He is about to impugn S. Peter's higher Authority by the performance of the promise of Authority , and Commission made finally ( as he thinks ) by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them ; wherefore , unles he prove that the Holy Ghost descended equally upon each , he can never argue hence against the inequality of S. Peter's Authority pretended by us , and so it avalis him nothing . He saw this in his book of Schism , where he used these words They were all fill'd with the Holy Ghost , and so this promise equally performed to all . But , being shown the infinite weaknes of his arguing from fulnes , to equality he shuffles about , neither positively standing to his pretended proofby going about to make it good , nor yet granting or denying any thing positively or giving any ground to fix upon any word he says , but telling us first , in a pretty phrase , that he is not concerned to doubt of the consistance of fulnes , and inequality of the Holy Ghost if it bee mean't of the inequality of divine endowments , and then , when he should telle us the other part of his distinction , and of what other inequality besides that of endowments and graces , the Holy Ghost can be said to be in the Apostles founding Commission , and so concerning him to impugn and deny he shufflingly ends thus ; Our question being onely of power , or Commission to Authority and dignity in the Church , and every one having that sealed to him by the Holy Ghost descent upon every one , there is no remaining difficulty in the matter . Where first he sayes , the question is of power , and dignity , whereas indeed it is of the equality or inequality of this dignity , not of the dignity it self , since none denyes , but that each Apostle had power in the Church , but that the rest had equall power to S. Peter . Secondly he never tells us , in what manner of the Holy Ghosts inexistence , besides that of divine indowments , this Authority was founded . Thirdly he instances onely against us , that every Apostle had power ; so tacitely calumniating our tenet , again , and leaves out the word eq●ally which could onely contradict and impugn it . Fourthly , that this coming of the Holy Ghost gave Cōmission and Authority is onely his owne wor●s , and proved from his own fancy ▪ And lastly when he hath used all these most miserable evasions he concludes that there is no remaining difficulty in this matt●● ; when as he hath not touch't the difficulty at all , but avoided it , with as many pitifull shift's , as a crafty insincerity could suggest to an errour harden'd Soul. Sect. 6. Our Argument from the Text , Tues Petrus , urged ; his arts to avoid the least mentioning it , much lesse impugning it's force , which hee calls evacuating it . With what sleights hee prevaricates from it to the Apocalyps . His skill in Architecture , and miserably-weak arguing to cure his bad quiboling . Dr. H. of Schism p. 89. 90. alledged some Testimonies out of the fathers affirming that the power of binding was conferred on all the Apostles ; that the Church is built upon Bishops ; that all in S. Peter received the Keyes of the Kingdomio of Heaven ; & that Episcopacy is the presidency of the Apostles . Now since Dr. H. pretends to impugn our tenet by these , and these infert onely that more Bishops have the power of the Keyes besides S. Peter ; it follows necessarily that he counterfeihed our tenet to be that none had this power but S. Peter onely . Hence Schism Disarm'd charged this either insincere or silly manner of discoursing upon him as a pittifull ingnorance , or els as malicious to pretend by objecting these that wee build not the Church upon Bishops in the plurall , nor allow any Authority to them but to the Pope onely . Hee replies Answ . p 69. that 't is apparent those words inject not the least suspition of that . I answer , 't is true indeed ; for it was , not a suspition they injected ( as he phrases it ) but plain and open evidence , see of Schism p 89. l. 28. 9. where after the testimony had told us that the Church is built upon Bishops the Dr. addes within a parenthesis [ in the plurall ] so placing the particular energie , and force of that place in the plurality of Bishops founding the Church . See again p. 90. l. 11. 12. &c. S. Basil calls Episcopacy the presidency of the Apostles ; the very same ( addes the Dr. ) that Christ bestowd upon all , and not onely on one of them ▪ Yet as long as Dr. H. can deny it , and say with a gentile confidence that 't is apparent his words did not inject the least suspition of that , words shall lose their signification , and his Readers ( if he can compasse it ) shall be fool'd to deny their eye sight . As for the Testimonies themselves , there is not a word in them expressing that this power was in like manner entrusted to every single Apostle , as well as to S. Peter , ( which yet he sayes p. 90. l. 16. 17. &c. ) if by as well he mean's equally , as he must , if he intend to impugn our tenet ; And the other sence which Answ . p. 70. l. 2. 3. he relies on , that from the Donation to S Peter , all Episcopal power which in the Church flows , and in which he puts force against our tenet , it as much favours , and proves it , as the being the fountain and source of all honour , and Magistracy in a Commonwealth , argues that that person from whom these flow is highest in dignity , and supreme in command in the same common wealth . After this he catches at an expression of mine , saying that the former Testimonies rather made for us ; which moderate words though I hope the later end of my former paragraph hath sufficiently iustify'd them , yet wee must answer the impertinent carpings of our Adversary , else the weak man will be apt to think that the shadow he catch't at is most substantiall , and solid . My word 's in relation to the said Testimonies were these ; Nay rather they make for us ; for the Church being founded on Apostles , and Bishops , prejudices not S. Peter to be the cheefest ; and , if so , then the Church is built most chiefly on S. Peter , which is all w●e Catholicks say . Now my discourse stands thus , If so , that is , if S. Peter be the cheefest then the Church is built more chiefly upon him , and I made account ( as I lately shew'd ) that those Testimonies rather made S. Peter the chiefest ; but , this peece of willfull insincerity first makes my if so , relate to , if it prejudices not , &c. and disfigures my discourse by making me say , if it prejudices not S. Peter to be the chiefest , then the Church is built chiefly upon him , and that I inferr from Testimonies not preiudicing that the thing is true . Next , he calumniates me most grossely , and manifestly Answ . p. 70. l. 35. 36. by making me bring this for a clear Evidence on my side ; whereas , my words ( Schism Dism . p. 99. ) are onely , Nay rather th●y make for us ; which are so far from pretending a clear evidence from them , that they neither expresse the least reliance on them , not say positively that they make for us at all . He shall not catch mee calling toyes Evidences , as is his constant guize : yet , to render his calumny more visible , he prints the words clear evidence , in a different letter , so that the honest Reader would easily take them to be my words . Then ▪ when he hath done , hee grows suddainly witty , an● insults over me without mercy calling mee an immortall disputer ; and truly I shall not dispaire of being immortall , if nothing be likely to kill me but Dr. H's harmles blunt reason . Next he tells me that I have deformed his answer to the Text tu es Petrus ; but in what I have deformed it he tells me not Nor , indeed , was it an answer at all to us , since he not at all put our argument , much lesse impugned it . Our argument stands thus , that the name Peter , signifying a Rock , and this name being not onely given particularly , to S. Peter , but also after a particularizing manner ; in all probability S. Peter was in particular manner a Rock to build Gods Church . Now the way for Dr. H. to take in this wit contest about words of Scripture ( according to the method already set down ) is to show out of the words , that it was not either given to S. Peter in particular , and after a particularizing manner ; or els , that , though this were so , yet that there was no ground ( prudentially speaking ) to think that S. Peter was in an higher degree or in a particular manner a Rock than the rest . As for the first to wit the giving the name to him in particular wee argue thus from it . Suppose there were twelve Orators , and yet one of those twelve called antonomastically or particularly Orator and were as well known by that name , and as comonly called by it , as by his own proper name ; certainly if that name were suppo●ed to be prudently appropriated to that one , it were great imprudence not to think that that person was in an higher degree an Orator , than the rest . Since then our ●aviour made this common appellative of Rock the proper name to S. Peter ( none being call'd Peter but he ) and that wee cannot doubt of our Saviours prudence in thus appropriating it to him , wee expect what Dr. H. can show us ( not out of his own head , but ) out of plain reason working upon the words Grammatically attended to ) sounding to our disadvantage so much as this sounds to our manifest advantage . As for the second , to wit the repeating the words after a particularizing manner , besides all other circumstances concerning the power of the Keyes heretofore which are competent to this also , two things in particular are energeticall or of force here ; to wit that repeating the name Pe●er to him [ Tues Petrus ] follow●d immediatly after his confession of Christ's divinity ; an occasion as proper to make him confirm'd a Rock in a particular manner and degree , as it would be to confirm the Antonomasticall title of Orator to that other parallell person upon occasion of some excellent oration made and pronounced by him . Wherefore , as the repeating and confirming the name Orator to him , by some eminent , and knowing Governour , upon such a proper occasion , would in prudence argue that this person was in an higher proportion & degree an Oratour , so the repeating this name in such a way to S. Peter [ and I say vnto thee thou art Peter , or a Rock ] after a parallell occasion , his particular confession of Christ's divinity , as much fitting him for it , ought in prudence to infer that he was in an higher degree a Rock than the rest . The other thing in which a particular energie is placed is in the allusion of the words [ hanc Petram ] as impossible to relate to the other Apostles in the same particular manner , as it is to pretend that all their particular names were Peter . This in the sence of our argument from the Text [ Tu es Petrus ] as joyn'd with the antecedent , and subsequent circumstances in stead of solving which or showing that his opposite sence more probably or connaturally follows from the very words Grammatically , or rationally explicated , Dr. H ( of Schism p. 91. ) first puts down the bare word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , sayes that it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are directly the same then relinquishes both the signification which the Scripture and their own translation gives that word ( as shall be shown ) and shows out of an odd place in Homer , that it is an ordinary stone , though he knows well that Poets are the worst Authors to fetch the propriety of words from , than by Math. 16. that apply'd to a building it must needs signify a foundation-stone thence , by the Apocalyps , a precious stone ; this done he fall's to deduce from the measuring a wall in the same Apocalypse , and dogmatizes upon it , though he knows it is the obscurest and most mysticall part of Scripture ; and then thinks he hath play'd the man , and that this rare proof is worthy to shut up finally the discourse against S. Peter's Supremacy , and ( as himself confesses ) the most substantiall part of ●his Controversy ; now to his toyes . He assures us Answ . p. 71. that his answer cannot misse to have this discernable efficacy in it , that there b●ing no more mean't by it , then that Peter was a foundation stone , and all the other Apostles being such as well as he this cannot constitute him in any Superiority over them , &c. I Reply : first , that pretended answer Misses of being an Answer to the place Tu es Petrus and is turn'd to be an argument from the foundation-stones in the Apocalyps . Why did not he show that the particularizing circumstances in the objected place had noe force in them , or were as congruously explicable some other way but in stead of doing so , ramble as far as the Apocalypse , ferrying over the question thither by the mediation of Homer , and such another unconnected train of removalls as was vs'd once to prove , that Cooper came from King Pipin . His answer therefore hath mis't to be an answer at all to that place , that is , of being all it should bee . Next , how knows he no more is mean't by it than that S. Peter was a foundation-stone , unles he can answer first the particularizing circumstances in the Text , which entitle him to be a Rock after a particular manner , or show that his contrary sence more genuinly emerges out of or a grees to the words there foūd : Thirly , that the other Apo●tles are such as well as S. Peter , if by [ as well ] he means that the rest were so too , 't is true , but nothing against us , who hold voluntarily that the Church was built upon all the Apostles : but , if by [ as well ] he means equally as hee ought , this being the question between us , then wee expect he should show us out of the words that this is equally probably their sence . Till he show this , our argument from the words makes still in his prejudice , and is iustly presumed to constitute S. Peter in some higher degree a Rock then the rest were . His reason against S. Peter's Superiority upon these Grounds , is , that Christ on●ly is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , chief corner-stone , and no other place in the foundation gives any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of power to one foundation above another , which he manifest's from the known position of foundation-stones , one by , not on the top of another . Thus this Apocalypticall Architect . In answer , first , I ask him how he knows that this place in the Apocalypse was designed to signify the order of dignity amongst the things there specified , which is in question , or onely this , that all the Apostles were foundations upon which the Church is built , which is graunted , till he manifest the former he can not pretend to deduce any thing from it against us . Secondly 't is impossible to p●etend that it was design'd to prove any such order of dignity : for , it neither shows us which was the chief corner stone , or that the chief corner-stone was higher , bigger , or more precious then the rest . So that , if the bringing no positive signe of an higher position prejudices S. Peter's Superiority it prejudices Christ also as much , expressing noe peculiar eminency to the head corner-stone at all more than to the rest . Thirdly the corner-stone signifying some eminency of power as appears by our Saviour's being call'd the head corner-stone , and this wall being-four-square Apoc. 21. v. 16. it follows that there are other corners besid's that which is allow'd to our Saviour , and consequently three chiefs in power over the rest of the Apostles , which being against both our principles , it is manifest that the order of dignity was not intended to be here signifyed , and consequently the whole place is quite besides the Drs purpose , and our question . Fourthly , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being directly the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Dr. H. grāts and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in near three score places of Scripture taken for a Rock and so trāslated by themselves ; and in particular , in this very place in Controversie Mat. 16. v. 18. super hanc Petram , upon this Rock , &c. although the other Apostles be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foundations , yet , since none of them is exprest to be a Rock but S. Peter onely , nor that the Church is built on any of them els as on a Rock , still he hath good title in all reason to bee in a more eminent notion a foundation-stone . For the notion of a foundation-stone not cōsisting in this that it rise higher , that it be longer vpwards or shorter , but that it bee unmoveable , and the strongest bearer of the superstructure ; and , a Rock in the Scripture being exprest to be the best for that purpose , as appears Mat. 7. v. 24. 25. it follows that S. Peter was in a more eminent manner a foundation-stone , and that the Church had a particular firmnes , and immoveablenes in being built upon him ; yet the Dr. can imagin noe distinction amongst foundation-stones under that notion , as long as they lye one by , not on the top another . So wise an Architect is the good man that he forgets , that to bee in a higher degree a foundation-stone is to bee in a higher degree of firmnes , but in a lower degree of position . Thus Reader tho seest what advantage Dr. H. would gain should I delight to quible with him in his own , and onely way . But I am already weary of this wordish stuffe . Next he undertakes to solve an argument which none objects but himself , and 't is this , that if S. ●eter be the first stone , and soe Superiour , then the next stone ( that is the second ) must needs be Superiour , to all the rest , &c. Soe kinde an Adversary have I that he leav's untouch't the argumente , from Tu es Petrus , which he pretends in this very place to answer ; and , in stead of doing so , help 's me with an argument of his own coyning from the Apocaly●se not worth a straw , ad then demolishes at pleasure , and very easily what his own ayrie fancy had built . But , as I never made any such argumēt as this which he thrusts upon me , so in that which I made Schism Disarm . p. 103. from the Iasper stone , I both exprest my self to do it for the Doctor 's sake , and renounced all reliance upon it in these words , that Catholicks who understand the Grounds of their faith sleight such poor supports as a self-fancied explication of the obscurest part of Scripture , Schism Disarm . p. 103. I objected , that his argument was negative , thus ; no distinction was put among the foundation-stones therefore there was none ▪ He answers that his conclusion onely ( not his proof ) was negative . Therefore the words tu es Petrus neither give nor affirm more of him than is given and affirmed of every of the other Apostles . Whereas , first he neither made any such conclusion , no not any conclusion at all against the Text Tu es Petrus , as wee object it ; nor tak●s notice of any particularizing circumstāce in the whole place so full fraught with them ; much lesse concludes against them . And , secondly his wise proof which inferrs this worthy conclusion is no other than this , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rock and foundation are the same . As if there could not be foundation-stones less firm then a Rock , and so lesse worthy the notion and name of a foundation , or a thing fit to build on which if there be , as common sense tells us , then the notion of a Rock superadded to the bare notion of foundation , and that within the limits of that common notion ; that is , it signifies a thing in an higher degree apt to sustain the building , or , which is all one , in a higher degree a foundation . Next , I objected that it was a most pittifull piece of ignorance to persuade the Reader from a plurality and naming twelve Apostles that all were equall , He Answers p. 72. that that was not his reasoning , but the rest of the Apostles were foundation stones as well as Simon ; and therefore that , that title of tu es Petrus was not proof of inequality Thus the Dr. rowls the same stone still : for , ( to omit that he impugns not the Text , Tu es Petrus , as found in it's own place attended by a throng of manifestly particularizing circumstances , but the bare word Petrus onely , nor that neither , according to it 's particular efficacitie as it signifies a Rok ) either the words [ as well as Simon ] mean that the other Apostles were foundations also , and then he calumniates our tenet not impugns it , since , wee never deny'd but that each of them was such ; or els , [ aswell ] signifies equally , and then I would know whether he suppose it ( that is the whole question ) gratis , or infer it ? or from what he can bee imagined to infer it there ▪ but from a plurality onely of the common appellation . Ne●ther could I wrong Dr. H's reasoning faculty in thinking so , whose common custome it is all over to argue for an equality from a plurality , and most expressely of Schism p. 87. l 2. 3. 4. 5. whe●e also he calls it an evidence , and , why he should not think the self same proof , an evidence , here as well as there , or why he should omit it if he thought it such , I confesse I was so dull as not to apprehende . Thirdly I objected that he had quite overthrown his own cause ; since , granting that a foundation stone , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the same and onely S. Peter having the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it follow'd on the Drs Grounds that he onely , and in good reason more particularly should be a foundation-stone . Dr. H. replies , first , that this is a st●ange argument were it put into form . Next , ( observe his kindeness ) he will not trouble him self with that ; but in stead of doing this , that is , in stead of showing my argument nothing worth , he recurr's to his owne confident sayings that t' is certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same ; which I have shown to be certainly otherwise , and that there may be foundation , and yet not a Rock neither . Then , building upon his owne certain , he introduces his so oft repeated conclusion , with a Sure , and then all is evident , After this he puts a pretended parallell to my argument thus . T is as if I should say Man , and Enosh being the same and onely the Sonne of Seth having the name of Enosh it follows on these Grounds , that he onely , and , in good reason , that he more particularly should be a man , And when he hath done he findes out a way for S. W. to defend himself from not being a man ; not considering that if Enosh be the onely man , it unmans Dr. H. as much as S. W. But , I thanke him , I will none of his assistance ; and as for his pretended parallell I answer that when the ordinary appellative , properly signifying the speciall notion , is appropriated prudently to some one thing or person , that thing or person ought to bee esteemed as participating in a higher , and more eminent manner of that notion or nature Now that Enosh properly signifies the species of man I deny ; the Hebrew Criticks assuring us that it signifies man , not in his own nature , but as subject to miseries and afflictions , in such a manner as mortalis does in Latine . Whereas the word Adam signifying man according to his nature , denotes also that he in a particular manner was a man , who had that name appropriated to him by God , the whole species being ingrost in him . So likewise the common name of Filius hominis , Sonne of man , being appropriated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to our Saviour , and of Orator to Cicero , it argues that they had a particular right to these titles ; that is , were in a higher and more eminent degree the thing which was signify'd by those words . Again the name Enosh might bee in a manner accidentally imposed by his parents , and was his first name , which therefore cannot be imagin'd to have any mystery in it more then the bare conceit of his Parents ; unles wee suppose his parents to have bene propheticall , and then it had an especiall reason , whereas , this name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a Rock , was imposed by our Saviour ; who in each action guided himself by the highest prudence ; and imposed on S. Peter in particular , nay on him having another proper appellation , sufficient to call him by , before ; all which argued a particular mystery , and designes in order to that name ; and denote him by the Antonomasticall appropriation of that common word , to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and eminently what it signify'd by it ; to wit , a Rock . Hence appear's with what reason I made my fourth objection to Dr. H. that he would have all the Apostles call'd Peter . For since it is not imaginable why our Saviour should appropriate and particularize to S. Peter the common appellative , Rock , without some propriety in S. Peter fitting for that particular name ; and that , according to Dr. H. each Apostle was equally ( that is without any propriety or peculiarity ) such , ( for hee makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the self-same ) it follows that our Saviour had equall reason to give to each of the rest also the same name of Peter ; for , there ought to be noe particularizing in any action , where there is a pure indifferency in the reason of the action . Now then , since our Saviour govern'd him self ever by perfect reason , he ought to have given to all the rest , the name Peter , by the same reason by which he gave it to one , the reason according to Dr. H. being equall . But this man who pretends to evacuate ( as he call's it ) our argument from Tu es Petrus , never tells us why S. Peter had the name of a Rock in particular , and no one of the rest ; but recurs still ( Answ . p. 73. l. 14. ) to his old mistake that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one and therefore that all are equa●ly foundation-stones , whereas indeed ( which much strengthens our argument from the word Petrus ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dot● not signify a foundation-stone but a foundation onely , and so is rendred by their own translation Apoc. 21. v. 14. which abstracts , Grammatically speaking , from Sand , straw , wool packs , wood , rock , or whatsoever els can be competent to a foundation good , or bad . Now then , since S. Peter is call'd a foundation , according to him equally with the rest , and also a Rock which is given to none of the rest , let him either deny that to be a Rock and a foundation both is not to be in a more excellent manner a foundation , or let him grant that S. Peter was such . Sect. 7. Dr. H's master peece of affected weaknes . Attendance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or step by step , interpreted by his carriage to signify the neglecting to answer all that was of importance or difficulty . A Review of his totall performance in answering this last Section , acknowledged by himself to bee most important and fundamentall . AFter this Professour of Mysticall Architecture had done dogmatizing from his foundation stones ; in the next place he falls to descant upon the measuring a wall in the same Apocalypse ; gravely objecting that I make much game at his arguing thence . And truly , I still account it the most ridiculous method that ever a weak reason stumbled on , to undertake to dogmatize , that is , to build his faith and destroy his own interpretation of a Mysticall part of Scripture , so beyond all controversy obscure in the highest degree , that it seems to need another revelation to know the meaning of it , as great as that which first inspired it . And that 't is the most openly-pernicious folly that can be imagin'd , first to tell his Readers that Schism is as great a sin as Sacriledge , Idolatry , Antichristianisme , &c. as he does ( of Schism . c. 1. ) and then , in stead of bringing evident , convincing , and demonstrative reasons , which onely can secure the Soul of any consciencious man , ( especially confessing that salvation may be had , if he had still remain'd with the obedient party ) to bring obscure mysteries , which have puzzled all the world hitherto ; of which also his own head must be the interpreter , and without manifesting first , nay doubting himself ( as shall shortly be seen ) whether the place was mean't of our question , or made for his purpose . And yet after all this calling this piece of midnight obscurity , and his cimmerian proof thence , an Evidence . Of Schism . p. 91. l. 22. His argument is this . It b●ing there in vision apparent , that the wall of the City , id est of the Church , being measured exactly , and found to be 144 id est ( repeats the Dr. ) twelve times twelve cubits , 't is evident that this mensuration assignes an equall proportion whether of power , or Province to all and every of the Apostles the sence of which he repeats again here Answ . p. 73. To show the ridiculousnes of this proof Schism Disarm p. 102. ask't him , whether none of those precious stones , which equally made up this wall , be richer then the rest ? and why , if it were so , the inequality in richnes , should not more argue an inequality in dignity and Authority amonst those who were represented by them , than the equall bulk can argue an equality , since the worth , dignity & value of precious stones is taken from their richnes and not from their bulk . Next arguing against him in his owne way I inferr'd , that since the first stone in this wall represented S. Peter , ( as appeared by Dr. H's Grounds allowing that Apostle a Primacy of order ) and was there exprest to be a Iasper , the same stone whose lustre shined in our Saviour Apoc. 4. 3. and also in his Church , Apoc. 21. 11. it would have bene priz'd for a rare argument by Dr. H. were he in my case , ( though sleighted by me ) that S. Peter onely having the same lustre with our Saviour , was like him in representation ; and so , he onely resembles him as his Vicegerent , and Vicar . As also , that , being the same stone the Church is made of and the first of all the rest , that he is consequently the first part of the Church , that is , her head . In answer to those first exceptions the Dr. sayes nothing at all ; and so , is nothing punctuall in his promised attendance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; that is , he vindicates not his argument to be worth a rush ; for , if the lustre & richnes be more valuable , and worthy in it's self , and so more apt to expresse dignity than the bignes or bulk ; then the inequality of richnes is more significative of inequality of dignity than the equality of bulk is of an equality under the same notion of dignity : nay more , ( as he was told ) there being an equality in the bulk found amongst them all , if there be found besides an inequality in richnes , as there is amongst those stones , every Lapidary , and even common sence will inform us that an inequality in dignity is unavoidable . But the good Dr. who at first thought his nice argument a rare busines , seing it marr'd , and all unravell'd , as easily happens to such cobweb stuffe , sees , and acknowledges now that it was neither worth , nor capable of repairing and so grew wise and let it alone ; hoping that his Readers would easily be perswaded that he had answered me perfectly and made good his argument , if he did but tell him in the end of the Section , that he had attended me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 'T is a rare method of answering to make two litle pedātick Greek words , which a man would think had nothing in them , stop such great holes . In answer to that which concern's the Iasper stone , he tells us first ( if we will beleeve him ) that i● is most proper to signify the lustre of zeal , and other gifts . But , why it should be most properly significative of those he affords not the least attempt of any reason to oppose my contrary exceptions . Next , he tells me , that he can allow me ( in this sence ) to make my aduantage of it : And , seing wee must have no other signification of that particular lustre , nor yet know any reason why , I shall take his allowance , and make my advantage of it thus against him . His Grounds made the coming of the Holy Ghost finally perform , that is , actually give Authority to the Apostles ; since then the Holy Ghost neither was nor can bee any otherwise in the hearts of the Apostles than by his gifts , the allowing an advantage to S. Peter above the rest in those gifts , is the allowing him an advantage over them in Authority , according to the same Grounds . Nor can he deny but that I have gained S. Peter this advantage if I make good my cōditions propos'd here by himself ; in which I shall finde no difficulty , they being both tacitly granted already . The first condition is , that I must finde mean's to assure my self that S. Peter was signify'd by that Iasper-stone . Is not this a sincere man , and a pretty discourser , who would have me finde a thing ere it bee lost . I a●ready found that mean's ( he well knows ) in Schism Disarm . p. 103. ( which he braggs here he attends on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) and that from his own words ; for , the twelve foundation-stones he grants to be the twelve Apostles of Schism p. 91 Now then , since himself in many places and particularly in that quoted by mee Schism Disarm . p. 103 grants S. Peter a Primacy of order , and Apoc. 21. 19. in the orderly recounting the stones the Iasper is mentioned to be the first in that order ; I see no possibility for Dr. H. to evade , but S. Peter was mean't by the Iasper . Himself saw the same also ; which made him soe shufflingly wary that in stead of replying to it , which was likely to cost him no lesse than either the denying his own most expresse words , or the most expresse words of Scripture , he onely tells me gentily , I must finde mean's to assure my self that S. Peter was signify'd by that Iasper-stone ; which he knew well I had already found , nor were they ever lost to me by any Reply of his . But in stead of invalidating that my assurance ad hominem , he tells me I must finde them again the second time , and this is the signification of that mungrell phrase , to attend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , never to take notice of his Adversaries argument but bidding him find it , or repeat it over again himself . The second cōdition is , that I must finde mean's to assure myself that the lustre of the Iasper exceeded the lustre of every of the other stones . This is another attendance of the same negligent strain as the former . Schism Disarm . p. 103. told him that the lustre of this stone shined in our Saviour Apoc. 4. 3. and also in his Church , Apoc. 21. 11 In stead of answering which , or giving any reason why our Saviour and his Church should bee represented by a lesse lustrous stone than the rest the sincere man onely bids me finde it again , whereas , it remains still visibly extant in it's originall integrity and untouch't yet by Dr. H. and so he knew well enough where to finde it himself without my showing him it , did ever answerer so lazily attend his Adversary as Dr. H. does me ? yet , if he still desire a reason of me , I shall give him this : that , in all reason wee should think ( unles hee knows something to the contrary ) that our Saviour and his Church deserved to be represented by the most lustrous and richest stone in the Company . Wherefore , the lustre of the Iasper being apply'd to them , we have noe reason to imagin the contrary but rhat it had a more perfect and glorious lustre than the rest . But this is not all I aim'd to induce hence ad hominem against Dr. H. my pretence was sufficiently intimated in the same place , that the lustre of the Iasper was used in the Apocalypse to represent persons of higher dignity and Authority to wit , our Saviour and his Church and soe the same stone representing S. Peter onely , exprest his higher dignity in a double relation , to our Saviour as being like in representation , and soe onely he resembling him as his Vicar , or Vicegerent : to the Church , as being the first part of her , that is her head , since his was the same stone she was of , and the first of all the rest . These objections I offer'd to show the Dr. overthrows in his own wordish way , and in his own weak argument : to which notwi●hstanding he gives no attendance at all , nor any other solution save onely sayes on his own head , that the lustre of the Iasper most properly signifies the lustre of zeal , and other gifts : but what Grounds he hath to thinke that it signified noe higher worth , or dignity , as apply'd to our Saviour and his Church , but onely zeal , and gifts ; or why , as apply'd to S. Peter ( to whom onely a mongst the Apostles it is attributed ) it should not signify the same as it did in other places , he offers nothing Onely he calls his sitting still when t' is his duty thus to be be stirre himself , a precise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attendance . Lastly , for an upeshot , himself knows not whether this stil born argument from the equall mensuration of the wall makes for him or against him ; for , he infers onely that it assignes an equall proposition whether of power , or Province to all , and every of the Apostles . So that , it seems himself is in doubt whether it relates to an equality in power , or Province . Now then , this being so , and equality in power being the onely question between us , unles he first can show that it hath regard to power , whihc yet he no where so much as attempts , more than by saying it does so , he is utterly incapable to pretend hence that the power in all the Apostles was equall . Again ( to omit that his conceit of Apostolicall Provinces hath been shown to be perfectly chimericall and Groundles ) what doth the equality of their particular Province prejudice us ? since with this it may well consist , that one of those Governors though equall in his private charge , may be either constituted by the Supreme , or agreed upon by the rest of those twelve to be their chief , and him to whom in extraordinary occasions , and more universall affairs recourse is to be had , as to a Superiour . Wherefore till Dr. H. afford me Evidence that this Mysticall place hath reference to power , or indifferently either to power , or Province ( for though he bee in doubt what it signifies yet he tells us ( of Schism p. 91. ) t' is evident , I shall take the liberty my nature allows me , to assent vnto neither ; but rather to think that it relates to the different disposition of Souls , onely known to God , as his Mysticall Author before explicated himself in another occasion ; and , that the heavenly Hierusalem shall be made up of such , some of them resenting and resembling the Spirit that is the particular māner of the knowledg ; and affection of S. Peter , others those of S. Iohn , of S. Paul , &c. which the Allwise orderer , and coorderer of nature and Grace saw most fitly to be signified by such , and such prescious stones , for some qualites , and properties which he best saw by analogy , commonly agreeing to both . Mysteries to be venerated by an humble admiration , not to be proudly presum'd as with a literall , and grosse familiarity known or seen by our muddy and flesh-veiled eyes ; which they doe who pretend to dogmatize & bring rigorous evidence ( the onely rationall ground of faith ) from such depths of obscurity ; the most pernicious and boldest irreverence that can bee offer'd to be onely certain ground of faith ( evidence of Authority ) or to the profound unscrutablenesse of those Mysteries themselves . Having behaved himself thus gallantly in this point of the donation of the Keyes he takes his leave of us in this triumphant manner , And so much for this large 13. Section , which I have attended on precisely and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as being most important to our busines in hand , the case of our Schism fundamentally depending on the Supremacy of S. Peter , and consequently of his first part . Where , first he makes the solving our places from Scripture to be most important , which wee never built on at all for this or any other point of our faith as applicated by the private skill of Drs or wits . Secondly , his attendance on me , which he praises for so diligent , and precise , if examin'd is onely this ; that he hath prevaricated from his pretence & promise ; injured us in omitting our best place of Scripture , and calumniated our tenet all over ; that he hath not shown us from the words that his interpretation is more connaturall , nor one equalizing word of this power to counterpoise the many particularizing terms objected by us , nor given us any other explication of those particularizing Texts , save onely his conceit against the Presbyterians which he pretends not to show deducible from the letter , but sayes it upon his owne fancy onely ; that hee omits to answer , or take notice of the most forcible and energeticall parts of those Texts , and the most difficult arguments wee produce ad hominem against him ; that he hath not brought one Authority to second his interpretation of twelve thrones for twelve Episcopall chairs , though he promis'd us there ; but falsify'd and abus'd one Author , pretēding him to vouch his interpretation , though most expressly and point blank against him ; injured another , by taking literally , and in a dogmaticall rigour what he exprest himself to mean mystically and yet even that Mysticall explication contradicting and disgracing many parts of his doctrine in this point ; and dissemblingly concealing the words , and place where 't is found in the third Author . That hee hath shuffled about most pittifully to make good his negative arguments , and his proof of equality from a bare plurality and fulnes ; that pretending to answer the place , Tu es Petrus , he leav's the particular and proper signification of the word , which Scripture , and their one translation gives it , and all the particular circumstances in the Text which accompany this word , that is , he leaves and omits so much as to mention all in which we put force from that Text , and by the assistance of Homer skips aside from answering that Text to argue from another in the Apocalypse ; that , being come thither , he brings another negative proof argues from plurality , to equality again , gives for his solution Grounds for all the Apostles to be call'd Peter ; falls to measure a wall in the Apocalypse to prove equality of power , without proving first , or knowing nay doubting himself whether it relate to power , or no , that hee omits to reply to those passages which show'd him baffled in his own argument ; and lastly , when he hath done , to let the Reader see he hath used his utmost here , he praises this point as most important , and brags that he hath attended us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and precisely ; whereas he left the main passage , and all the circumstances that force was put in un attended , and untouch't ; and most miserably shuffled about , blunder'd & quibbled in all the rest . THE CONCLVDING SECTION . Reason why the Disarmer proceded no further in laying open Dr. H's fault . Objected Falsifications , clear'd ; and some of them retorted upon the Objector . An unparallell'd and evidently willfull one of the Drs , presented to himself and his Friends in requitall . Friendly counsel to the Dr at parting . AND now , understanding Reader , what dos't thou expect further ? that I should lose my own ill employ'd time , & vex thy patience , already cloy'd , with laying open this Drs weaknesses & false dealings through the rest of his book ? or rather , dos't thou not complain how unnecessary so long a refute is to such a Trifler ; and candidly correct mee ( as some iudicious friends have already done ) that it had bin abundantly sufficient , and as much as he deserved , to gather together a Catalogue of his manifest absurdities , and then leave him to the censure of iudicious & ingenious lovers of truth & reason ? I confesse in the tedious processe of this Reply , seeing nothing worthy a man , that is , nothing which pretended a rigorous or rationall discourse , I became wholly of their minde too : yet , I had such regard to the weaknes of the multitude of Readers , that I still proceeded in laying open minutely the unparalleld sillines & insincerity of their adored preaching Doctor ; and the tyranny of that consideration had transported me into farther inconveniencies , so as to shew him constantly like himself to the very end of his long book , had not I been partly urged , partly necessitated to desist , and my desistance warranted by these following reasons . First , that Wits & Schollars , who are the flower of Readers , are deterr'd & disenvited from reading books , especially Controversies , if they grow to any excessive bulk : And , to those that should read such , it would be in a manner ungratefull , when nothing is to be seen but the faults of a writer laid open , which was the reason , that , to give some tincture of solidnes to my Reply , & so to take of the tediousnes from knowing Readers , I have taken occasion to discusse some points ( as those concerning Possession , the Churches power to binde to beleef , the certainty of Tradition , &c. ) more largely than I was obliged out of any respect due to my Antagonist himself or his sleight way of writing . Secondly , I have given unexpected satisfaction before hand to more knowing persons , by laying Grounds before my Reply , which come home to the life of the question , & at least endeavor to clear it rationally ; which therefore I conceive would be more gratefull & profitable to them ; and on the other side ( being supererogatory to the task of a Respondent ) might deserve to excuse some part of that which was ungratefull , & to them unprofitable ; nay , all of it , confes 't by Dr. H. himself ( as shall be seen ) to be unnecessary . Thirdly , I had acknowledg'd some beholdingnes to the Catholike Gentleman's letter ; & , so , had drawn upon my self an engagement to vindicate it also against Dr. H's Reply . By which mean's I had two books of his to refute as far as I proceeded ; to both which had I reply'd quite through , it would have made too-large a volume . Fourthly , the B. of Derry had , e're I had answer'd Dr. H's first part , put out a refute to my Appendix to Schism Disarm'd ; which oblig'd me to leave some room in my already big book for him , and to bestow on him some part of that my defensive task otherwise due & intended to Dr. H. and so I had not room enough to prosecute all the less necessary trifles of that my long winded Adversary . Fifthly , the task it self of answering such kinde of sleight soul'd Writers was most tedious & irksom to any one who pretends to & ayms at Science ; nay most irrationall and senceles ; consisting in this , that , rigorous discourse & the immediate & evident connexion of terms ( that onely proper satisfaction to a reasonable Soul ) being neglected , upon which our Tenor & Rule of faith , immediate Tradition , is , at least , pretended to be built ; to leave this , I say , and to stand replying to every odd end of a worm-eaten Record or testimony ; which , without the help of this Tradition can claim no originall Authority at all , much less against it ; and , for the most part , is falsify'd , unauthentick , ambiguous in terms , or non-cluding if it hap to be true , & truly-proposed , besides many other weaknesses invalidating it ; which is to neglect sence for words ; and , instead of reasoning from Grounds , fall to quibbling in Sounds Sixthly , even in pursving this testimony way , I have shown to the eye of the Reader , this Drs manner of writing , so infinitely faulty & weak , so full fraught with falsifications , paralogisms , perverting both words & sence of Authors , omitting words most important for us , adding others most important for himself , suborning Arch-hereticks for true fathers , building upon Testimonies fetch 't from those of his own side , alledging places as for him , & concealing the words found to be directly against him , shuffling a way the true point , with a gentile slines , begging , or els mistaking the question all over ; as oft calumniating our tenets & positions , runing division upon a dow-bak'd If a long way , without ever considering the if not ; Talking voluntarily , to & fro , upon his own head in a preaching vein , blundering things in themselves most clear with needles distinctiōs & explications , which he uses , against their nature , to involue & confound : recurring to & dilating himself much in the generall terms , so to avoid coming to the particular point ; contradicting himself frequently , and in one point Nine or ten times , flourishing all over with certainly , surely , irrrefragably , infallibly , unquestionably , accordingly , plainly , manifestly , demonstrably , undoubtedly , clearly , expresly , we know , it is manifest , id est , perfectly , unavoidably , evidently , & innumerable such other expressions , all sprung from his own fancy to give countenance to the Testimonies , not from the Testimonies or any force of reason to make good those expressions : to which add his sober sermon-phrases so oft repeated , of no degree of truth , no appearance of force ; I did in the simplicity of my heart verily beleeve ; I shall not deem it necessary to descend to any further proof : His playing the Pedant all over in Greek to amuse the good women & silly children ; those , I say , & many other faults , follies & weaknesses , I have shown to any intelligent Readers eye so manifest & so frequent in him , that I could not conceive any imaginable necessity of laying him open further ; and that if he have been convinc't to behave himself so weakly & insincerely in that part of his book which himself accounts onely to have been fundamentall ; the like might iustly be expected ( without showing it by detail ) in the rest of his book , which he acknowledges to be lesse necessary ; in case we may have so good an opinion of him as to think he would treat more solidly & sincerely that which more imports & is substantiall to the question of Schism , and by consequence most highly concerns mens salvations , which depend there upon . Seaventhly I was disenvited by this , that , it is particularly against my inclination & temper ( whatsoever Mr. H's & his friends may conceive of mee ) to stand manifesting the faultines of others , further then I can be satisfy'd it is precisely necessary ; judging it the most illiberall task that a Soul which longs after Science could be put upon , to be employ'd in discovering the disingenuity & weaknesses of the wrongers of Truth ; and , professing with all sincerity , that I had rather candidly confess & acknowledge the virtues , & advance the fame of good Writers according to the degree I finde them to deserve , than to reveal the vices & shame of bad ones ; as my favourable expressions , on the by , concerning the acutenes of the Lords , Faukland & Digby , & the wittines of that Giant for fancy , Dr. Donne , in my Schism Disarm'd , clearly testify . Eightly , I was much deterr'd even from endeavouring any particular exactnes in this , much more from attempting the rest by reason of the dangers & in a manner imposibility to get my books printed here in England , and the great charge & hazard also I saw I was like to be at in sending them to France . It is very cheap & easie for them to brag of a quicker Reply , to whom the presse is free , & the book sellers shop licenced , both to print & vent them openly with security & advantage : whil'st those Authors , whose books , are prohibited printing in England vnder great penalties & forfeitures , after they have past the chargeable & tedious press beyond sea , may not be sold here but at the loss of forty shillings a book if the buyer pleases to prove Knave , are not yet by their sillily-insulting Adversaries allow'd what in reason is due for such disencouragements , hazards & delayings . Ninthly , 't is a farr more secure satisfaction to candid Readers to see a main part of a book answer'd cōpleatly & fully , than the whole slubberingly and imperfectly ( as I have , and shall show further , that Dr. H. hath answer'd mine ) for this latter method leaves a way open to omit many things , amongst which it may happen that some are very important ; whereas , the former manner of proceeding debarrs that licentiousnes , and all pretence of that excuse ; and so makes either the cause or the Writer unavoidably fall under a just suspect if it chāce to fall short of being satisfactory : But especially if that part of the book , which is thus fully reply'd to bee acknowledg'd by both sides to bee solely important , a conciser and solider way of satisfaction cannot bee imagin'd . Lastly , if all those former reasons alledg'd will exuse me from performing a needles duty , Dr. H. himself shall compleat my iust excuse , & confess this was needles : who in his book of Schism p. 92. after he had finish't his sleight discourse against S. Peters Supremacy ( the part which I have largly reply'd to ) he adds that 't is very unnecessary to proceed to the other part of it , &c. that this is in effect the onely ground of the Romanists pretensions , &c. that he thinks fit again to remind the Romanist , and peremptorily to insist on this exception against S. Peter's Pastorship over all the rest of the Apostles , and p. 94. that what he should add concerning the power of S. Peter's Successor , as such , would be perfectly , ex abundanti , more then needs , and so he desires it may be look't on by the Reader . The like he repeats in his Answer to Schism Disarm . p. 74. Saying that my 13th Section ( which vindicated S. Peter's Supremacy ) was most important to our busines in hand : that , the case of our Schism fundamentally depends on that Supremacy , &c. Thus he . Now then , I have fully reply'd to & vindicated our tenet in all that he calls fundamentall , onely necessary , our onely Ground , and which he professes he peremptorily insists on , it follows that , had I done more , I had done a busines not important , nor fundamentall , nor on which they peremptorily insist ; and so , it being also unnecessarily for mee to vindicate a point , which he thinks very unnecessary to prosecute , my further endeavors had been confessedly to no end , or frivolous , if taken alone ; but , joyn'd to my former reasons , absolutely vnwise & temerarious . I omit that Dr. H. neglecting to answer almost all my 9th Section of the 2d part of Schism Disarm'd , which prov'd the Protestants guilty of the materiall fact of Schism ; and all my 10th Section , which prov'd them guilty of the formall part of it ; that is , neglecting to answer all that part of my book in which I brought him to terms of reason , and which did intrinsecally , fundamentally , & substantially concern our question , and passing them over sleightly p. 224. after he pretended falsly that I beg the question , with telling the Reader that he will leave me to Skirmish with my own shadow wheras it was the hottest Schirmish in the book ( as any ordinary eye may discern ) I conceive it gives mee iust occasion to neglect answering that in him , which himself confesses neither substantiall nor fundamentall . I omit also that I was often blam'd by respected and knowing friends , for losing so much pretious time , in such a worthles foolery ; which I might have employ'd much better to mine own & others advantage ; they assuring me likewise that his Reply was not valued by any indifferent and iudicious persons ; nor by all on his own side but onely by a few ; who were so irrationall ( & therefore inconsiderable ) that they never examin'd any thing , but immediately took that to be in reality an Answer which was call'd so : & would iudge him alwaies to have the best , who should speak the last word , whether it were sence or no. Thus much to show that I had no precise necessity nor iust reason to vouchsafe Dr. H. a larger Reply . Yet , though in doing this I spare the Drs credit , I must not neglect to clear mine own , and add something more in vindication of my self from his senceles aspersions . But , indeed , in nothing can I more discredit & disgrace him than in rehearsing & clearing what he objects in this Kinde . For , by this the candid Reader seeing how inconsiderable the worst is he can say against mee , will discern that he had an ingenious Adversary , & conclude thence that it was the power of Truth , not any sleight of tricks , which thus baffled the Dr. If then my greatest faults be proved innocent , my lesser ones will ( I conceive ) be held so likewise ; since it is presumable that no man will accuse another of a greater faul but upon a better ground . Now the greatest vices of a Writer are falsifications ; for , what credit can ever be rationally given to any Writer who is once convinc't to have bely'd the Author he cites , & to have falsify'd wilfully . Faults of this sort he objects to me onely in two places , as far as I observe . In examining which I crave the Readers exactest diligence , & decline not his most rigorous censure ; nay , if he can in reason iudge that I wilfully chang'd any thing , that is , gain'd or endeavored to gain the least possible advantage by my mistake , ( which is the onely touchstone , as it is the sole reason of falsifying ) then I give him free leave to brand me in his thoughts for infamous , and shall in requitall pardon Dr. H. the long rowle of his wilfull or manifestly advantageous ones . 〈◊〉 first of these pretended falfisications is found related in his Answ . p. 201. and also put in the title to his 11th Section p. 195. To clear the Reader 's understanding the better , and mine own credit totally , I will put down first the substance of the point there handled , & the substance of my Answer given ; next , the circumstances amongst which my wrong transcription is found ; by which means one may easily & solidly iudge whether my oversight had any influence at all upon the point in hand ; and conclude , that , if evidently it had none , then it was onely a materiall lapse in transcribing Dr. H's words , equally incident to any man living , not a formall fault . In his book of Schism p. 124 , parag . 19. he attempts to prove that Kings have supreme power in Ecclesiasticall causes . Amongst his other marginall notes ayming to conclude this , in the following page we read these words ; So in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole third book is made up of iustinians . 1. e. the Emperor's constitutions de Episcopis , Clericis , & Sacris , concerning Bishops , Clergy men , & Sacred Offices . This is the substance , nay the totall of his objection . The substance of my Answer , ●ound Schism Disarm'd p. 167. is this , that all the laws found there , must not necessarily be Iustinians ; since the Keepers of laws use not onely to put in their law books those Constitutions themselves made , but also those they are to see observed ; amongst which are the Canons & laws of the Church , made before by Ecclesiasticall power . This is the main & substance of my Answer to that objection in generall . How weakly he reply's to this , telling us onely Answ . p. 202. that this cannot possibly be accommondated to the matter in hand , because 't is certain ( cries the strong reasoning Dr. ) he made many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning Ecclesiasticall matters , which the Authors name put to them and the persons to whom they were written ; I cannot totally omit to let the Reader see by the way how pittifull this Reply of his is , how nothing to the point : this being to say over again what we grant , and leaving untouch't what we object : since all this might have been done , whether those Constitutions had been originally his own or no ; and , will serve for an instance how weak this Dr. is in the following part of his book , were he duly call'd to account . But , this concerns not my task at present ; which is onely this , to put down substantially the question , his proof , & my Reply , that it may be thence iudged whether I could possibly be said to gain any advantage by the circumstances I faultred in . The first of those circumstances is that whereas his words were Iustinians Constitutions de Episcopis , Clericis , & Sacris ▪ I transcribed de Episcopis , Clericis , Laicis . Now , if he contend I transcribed one word wrong in answering his whole book , I grant it ; and , I conceive , Dr. H will not presume himself exempt from the like faillings : But , if he pretend that I falsify'd or did it voluntarily , plain sence will overthrow him quit me . No man does a thing voluntarily but for some end ; and the end an insincere Writer can be imagin'd to have in falsifying is to gain some advantage to his cause . If then it be most manifest that I neither did attempt nor could possibly gain thence the least advantage , nor that he himself attempts to shew I gain'd any , no man of reason but will acquit my sincerity , & accuse mine Adversary for a calumniator . First then that I did not attempt any advantage thence is clear both in my words which never put either the least force in the word Laicis , nor so much as mention'd it or any thing to that sence ; nor , yet , in the omission of Sacris Secondly , it is yet more manifest in that mine Adversary never goes about to show that I made the least use of this mistake , which yet solely imported in such an objection ; but rather on the contrary calls it a meannes , saying that I am come to that meannes of changing his words ( and indeed it is a strange meannes to change them to no purpose ) and alledges onely as the cause of that meannes ( forsooth ) that I did it ( not to gain any help to defend my tenet by it ) but to get some advantage of carping at them . But , that even this is as falsly pretended as the other , the Readers eye will inform him , if he please to peruse my Answer ( Schism Disarm . p. 167. ) where he will see that there is not a sillable which sounds like carping at his words , but a serious Answer to the point Thirdly , that I could reap no profit by such a mistake appears by the very point it self apply'd to my words : for , since he denies not but I transcrib'd right , and grants that he made laws de Episcopis & Clericis ; of Bishops and Clergy men ; to what end should I omit Sacris , sacred Officies since he that could make laws concerning those , who were over Sacred Officies , could a fortiori make laws for the Sacred Offi●ies themselves : as himself yeelds of Schism p. 125. l. 18. 19. And , lastly , this objection is convinced to be most senceles by this , that my Answer given was equally pertinent & strong , apply'd to Sacris , had it been there , as it was to Episcopis & Clericis , when this was left out : since it contended that law Keepers use to put in their law books the Constitutions & Canons of the Church to make them more powerfully observed & received : which equally fit 's the pretence that they made Constitutio●s de Sacris , as that they made them de Episcopis & Clericis . In a word , I confess , the infinit tediousnes of my dreaming Adversary made me write the whole book in some hast , caused by my impatience to stand triffling after that manner ; and my particular hast here appears also by leaving out the particle [ & ] before [ Sacris ] ( of which I wonder the Dr. made not another falsification ) as well as in mis-writing that word . And , it seems , the Antithesis or opposition between Clericis , & , Laicis , very obvious to one's mind , not particularly attentive , which seem'd warranted by my fore knowledge that Iustinian ( a secular Prince ) made laws concerning laymen also , made me not aware of my mistake ; and , on the other side , there was nothing in so unconcerning a change which could awaken in me an apprehension that I had erred ; which , had there been any force put particularly in that word , I should have reflected on . But I have said too much in excusing a materiall error , to which the best & wisest man living is obnoxious : materiall , I say ; since both the substance & import of the point there in hand , the perfect silence of mine Adversary in applying my mistake to the said point , and his onely ( but false ) pretence that I gain'd hence advantage to cavill at them , examin'd by any Readers eye , all conspire to excuse it from being formall & affected . Yet , this is my great falsification ; the rest are such pittifull toies that they blush for shame in their objector's behalf assoon as they show their faces ; & instead of blaming me , accuse him of the contumeliousnes he layd to my charge in the beginning of his book . The second falsification ( found here likewise ) is this , that whereas he said that in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the whole third book is made up of Iustinian's Constitutions de Episcopis , &c. I call it Iustinian's third book . Where 's the difference ? onely here , that Iustinian ( as is agreed & granted by both ) writ those laws , but another collected them , so that , according to him 't is a falsification to call those laws Iustinian's book , which himself both here & in the following page confesses Iustinian constituted or writ , because another collected them into a Sy●nopsis . Alas poor man ! yet this falsification is plurally exprest with the former , & put in the title of his Section as a busines of great concern . Now , he never pretends that this empty chimera of a falsification , has any influence at all upon my cause or Answer , onely he tells me I have ill luck : and , indeed so I have ; but 't is onely in this that I have lost my time in confuting so weak an Adversary . My third falsification ( alas ) is found objected in his Answ . p. 167. Attend Protestant Readers , & all you that run to this Drs Sermons , with such a gaping admiration ! See in these two present calumnies of his how sillines & in sincerity are at fisticufs about their iust claim to him , leaving it a drawn Match to which of them he more properly belongs : Either qualification being in the height , they admit no comparison & so no Vmpirage I shall put down the very words , the very page , & the very line , where my words & his are found ; and then leave them that love Truth better then his person , to abhor such an open Affector of Fals-dealing ; and those that hug an airbred opinion of him above the respect due to Truth & honesty , to the iust regret , which such inexcusable follies & disingenuities of their preaching Dr. will cause in their partiall Souls . In his book of Schism p. 118. l. 11. 12. 13. 14. to prove that Kings had a proper power to erect Metropolitan's , he cited the 12. Canon of the council of Chalcedon : where ( he said ) mention was made of cities honored with letters Patents from the Kings , with the name & dignity of Metropoles : Now , the Greek as put down by himself , being onely that they were honored 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which signifies precisely [ with the name of a Metropolis ] no more ; and , it being contended & proved by me out of Dr. H's own friend Balsamon , that they had no dignity of Iurisdiction , I excepted with good reason against his rendring the single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which signifies onely with the name , by that double & advantageous expression of [ name & dignity . ] My exception Schism Disarm . p. 145. l. 3. 4. &c. was delivered in these words , that the council sayes onely , those cities were honored with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , [ the name alone ] which the Dr. fluent in his expressions englishes name & dignity . Now this particle [ alone ] after [ name ] he calls a falsification , insincerity , & alledges it is put in by me ; whereas , 't is most palpably manifest , I used the word [ alone ] as my own word not the councill's , and put it in opposition to his double phrase of [ name & dignity . ] And , how it is possible to correct one , who insincerely translates a single word by two different ones , without vsing the limitative particle [ onely ] or [ alone ] to restrain his extravagant interpretation , no man living can imagin . To evidence yet more clearly that I used the word [ alone ] as mine own not the councils , I was so exact as to put it down in a different letter from that in which I put [ the name ] pretended to be the councils words ; to wit , in the comon letter , in which I used to put mine own words throughout the whole book as contradistinguish't fom the words of others ( as is to be seen Schism Disarm . p. 145. l. 4. 5. ) yet all this minute wa●ines , which left no possible room for any cavill , was not sufficient to secure my sincerity , nor stave of Dr. H. from his needfull , & now grown naturall insincerity ; look Answ . p. 167. l 2 and you shall see he changes the word [ alone ] in which he contends my falsification consists , from the roman letter in which I writ it ( and by thus writing it , ownd it for mine ) into the Italic or translation letter , which signifies that I pretended it the council's word and translated it thence . And , when he hath thus changed my word , thus distinctively put , & consequently my intention , and the import or application of that particle , he calls his manifest falsification of my words , my falsification of the Councils ; and Grounds his cavill & calumny meerly upon his own insincere carriage ; in which I must tell him plainly he has committed a peece of most open knavery . Let the Dr. & his friends patdon me these plain expressions , till they show me why he that accuses another of falsifying ( which is Knavery in the height ) and builds his uniust accusation onely upon the same fault committed by himself at the same time , may not with justice & modesty both be branded with that qualification , which he would thus vniustly affix upon another . My fourth falsification ( Si Dijs placet ) is found in the same places as the former , Schism Disarm . p. 1 5. I cited the council that those Metropolitanes ( erected by Kings ) should enjoy onely the honour ; and then alledged Balsamon's words , that this honour mean't no more but that that Bishoprick should be called a Metropolis . Now , Dr. H. in his Answ . p. 167. l. 19. assures his Reader that [ this is another falsification ] such another as the former , you may be sure . But why good Dr. ? Do you go about to show that I put not down the Authors words aright , but mangledly & corruptly to my onely & best advantage , as your custome is ? Nothing less ; he pretends to show no such thing ; though this be the very thing we use to call a falsification . Strange ! How comes this then to be a falsification when not one word is shown to be falsify'd ? why thus . Balsamon ( alledges the Dr. ) Say's no more then this that [ some asked , or heard , or were told , &c. ] Good ! use thine eyes again , Reader , & see whether , Schism Disarm . p. 145. l. 13. 14. &c. in the very place to which he relates , I did not put down minutely & particularly both in Greek and English those very words as told us by Balsamon , with which the Dr. here correc'ts me , and slily intimates to the abused Reader , that I either disguised or omitted it . The testimony was this as set down by me verbatim out of Balsamon : [ Some desired to know what that honour mean't ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and received Anwer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that except onely that this Bishoprick , was called a Metropolis , in all other things it was subject to the former Metropolis . ] Now I never pretended that Balsamon told us this as his own opinion , but as the judgment of others , I quoted him as an Historian , not as judge : nor can the very words put down by me [ Some desired , &c. ] possibly permit such a conceit . Nor , had it been my advantage ( could common sence have born it ) to have pretended this as the sentence of Balsamon ; for , I ever conceived it came from persons of greater Authority and supposed more knowing in those affairs , that is , from the council or some of the council , at least from persons , who perfectly understood it's meaning . For , of whom should we imagin in reason such a question was ask't , but of such persons ? or why should we think that Balsamon , writing upon that council with pretence to explicate it , should intend to put down a frivolous question & an impertinent Answer , and not rather a solemn question proposed by some concerned persons about the sence of that council , and satisfy'd by some iudicious persons intimately acquainted with , or of that council it self , if not of the whole council ; which is most sit , as it is most able , to interpret it 's own meaning . It had been then both impossible the words put down by my self should bear it , and also very disadvantageous to my cause to pretend Balsamon spoke this of his own judgment : and consequently the irrationall & perfectly groundles aspersion of this Dr. ly all at his own door , & challenge him aloud of the insincerity he objects to others . The reason he gives why this was a falsification ( forsooth ) is introduced with another [ besides ] and is still asmuch besides the purpose as the former . Besides this , I say ( marke the strength of the Drs words ) It is clear that this of being onely called M●tropolitans , was the punishment inflicted on them by the council , which as I said , &c. well Dr. let the council mean what it please , or let my consequence hold well or ill , that is another question ; but , did I omit any word of Balsamon in this present testimony ( which you pretend I falsify ) which seem'd to oppose my tenet ? did I add or change any title in favour of it ? nay did I add , detract , or change the least particle how unconcerning soever , or do you goe about to show any such thing ? how then , and with what face can you pretend I falsify'd it ? If all ill consequences or deductions be falsifications , then it is impossible , where men maintain different opinions , but one side or other must necessarily be falsifiers . Since then I neither pretended not could pretend any more , but that Balsamon told us what honour meant by relating the Answer given to those demanders , and this is verbatim avouched in those words as put down by me , nor is my putting them down reprehensible by my very Adversary , it follows ( what ever my consequence or arguing thence be ) that I am acquitted of insincerity ; and that the groundles pretence that I falsify'd is proved to be an undeniable evidence that Dr. H. most willfully and weakly calumniated And , as for his endeavour to invalidate my consequence , layd out here in those pretty terms of , I say , it is clear ; as I said , &c. were time & place proper to Answer it , I dare undertake to show that these bold words are the best proof he brings for it , what ever Glosses he makes from the abused council . And now , kinde Reader , I have acquitted my self , & shown to thine eye , that the greatest faults the most calumniating Adversary could pick out of my writings are perfectly innocent : but , what worthy requitall for so much iniustice can I offer to Dr. H. I could present thee , Reader , with a long black Scrowl of egregious & wilfull falsifications from the rest of his long book , which I have so mercifully spared ; nay , I could show thee a new brood of most enormous ones in his very book of Schism , which escap't my observation when I first answered it ( so pregnant & fruitfull are his writings of such helps ) I could let thee see there , p. 103. how citing the Novels that Iustinian ordained the Arch-bishop of Iustiniana should have in that diocese , locum Apostolicae Sedis , ( as he puts it ) and then Englishes it , the place or dignity of an Apostolicall Seat , which thus put equalls him in a manner to the dignity of any other Apostolicall Seat by this independency ; the false dealing man leaves out the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of Rome ] though found closely woven in the context thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the Apostolicall Seat of Rome ; which marrs all his Market , and signifies he was there in the Pope's place or stead ; that is , was his Vicegerent , and so subordinate & dependent on him . I could show thee , how not content to falsify thus grosely & wilfully onely in the same testimony , he doubles or rather trebles my former fault & shame ; and that , whereas the question was whether the Emperor could do it dependently on the Church and executing her orders , which we grant ; or independently , & without her orders , which we deny & he pretends , the Dr. puts down onely that the Emperor constituted this Arch-bishop should have locum Apostolicae Sedis , the place of an ( as he falsifies it ) Apostolicall Seat ; but leaves out what follows immediately in the same sentence to his preiudice , & vtter overthrow , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : according to those things which were decreed by the holy Pope Vigilius ; which signifies that the Pope made that Arch-bishop his Vicegerent in those Countries by his decree , and that this order of the Emperor was subsequent , conformable to & onely executed the former intentions & orders of the Pope ; all expresly against him & for us , and therefore both those & the former words being thus important , and thus industriously singled & culled out by the Dr. it is impossible but 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 ●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 Traditiō ; 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 incoherēt 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 , S● , 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 THE PRETENDED REPLY OF Dr. Bramhall L d of Derry . THE INTRODVCTION . LITTLE remains to bee reply'd to my second Adversary in substantiall and fundamentall points , either in behalf , of R. C. or S. W. if those passages in which I bring Dr. H. to Grounds bee duly reflected on : since , neither can my Lord of Derry deny but that there is now a breach made between us in the points now controverted ; nor does hee pretend demonstrative and rigorous Evidence that the Pop'es Authority was an vsurpation , and so their renouncing it no criminall breach but a lawfull self-enfranchisement : Nor lastly , does hee endeavour to shew that less , than such rigorous Evidence ( that is , that probable reasons ) are sufficient ground to renounce , such an Authority ; and soe strongly supported by a long possession , an vniversall delivery of immediate forefathers as come from Christ , &c. or , that it was prudence to hazard a Schism , & consequently their salavations upon the uncertain lottery of a probability . This was all which fundamentally concern'd this Controversy ; and this is wholly omitted by his fellow Mr. H. aswell as himself ; and , consequently , till they speak out directly to this point ( to do which they are ever very warily loath ) they can onely hope it from courtesy , not claim it from iustice , that they are vouchsafed any answer at all ; since , they who will not bee drawn to speak to the purpose , deserve to been neglected , and suffer'd to talk to no purpose . Now , for satisfaction how little can bee said to those most concerning points , to omit other places , I refer my Reader to Sect. 9. & 10th of the 2 d part of Schism Disarm'd left in a manner wholly unanswer'd as yet by Mr. H. and to my Grounds before the foregoing Treatise . In answer to the Title Down-Derry hee shows himself mystically proverbiall , and tells the amused Readers , that it were strange if hee should throw a good cast who seals his Bowl upon an undersong . I must confess the Bp. is far the better Bowler ; & that S. W. is so unexpert as not to understand what should bee mean't by sealing a Bowl vpon an undersong . Onely lest hee should conceit some petty victorie in having thus pos'd his Adversary , hee may please to take notice that it nothing concerns him ; for the Bp : is beholding for the title Down-Derry ( and consequently the world , for this rare bowling phrase sprung from that happy occasion ) to the merry stationer ; who without my knowledge or approbation would needs make it the post-past to his Bill of fare . The iest was very proper & fatall ; but , whether courteous or no , I leave the Bp. and him to scuffle for it : and address my self to a serious examin of the Bishop's Reply . Wee have seen already that hee is a good Bowler , let us see now whether hee bee an honestman . Sect. 1. How my L d of Derry omits totally to mention the second part of our charge ; and preuaricates from answering any title of the first , by cavilling groundlesly at unconcerning toyes ; giving us generall terms in stead of the particular thing ; falsifying openly the Council of Ephesus ; contradicting common sence ; of controvertist turning Lawyer , and impugning the Extent of the Pope's Authority , instead of the substance of it ; wilfully misrepresenting every word of our Rule of faith , as put down by his Adversary ; and , lastly , by plainly confessing hee will not answer our charge or Objection . IT was objected that the crime of Schism would appear to bee iustly charged upon his Church not onely with colour , but with undeniable Evidence of fact ; by the very position of the case and the nature of his exceptions . Meaning , that there was a manifest fact of renouncing and breaking from an Authority long acknowledg'd as of Christ's Institution , upon Exceptions short of Demonstration ; that is , short of power to convince a rationall understanding ; that is , Passion & not those reasons must move first the will , and by it the understanding to a conuiction ; that is , the breach or Schism was criminall . Now the good Bishop First leaves out the second part of these words , [ the nature of his Exceptions ] which concern'd himself ; and puts down onely the first part , to wit , the position of the case . Whereas , wee charge them not with Schism upon this single account , that they broke from a formerly-acknowledg'd Authority , which is the position of the case ; but , that they broke from it without hauing Evident & demonstratiue reasons and Exceptions against it , but , at best , pretended probable ones onely ; that is , such as are no waies either able to oblige the understanding to assent upon them , nor sufficient Grounds to renounce any Authority at all , much less an Authority held sacred before , & thus qualify'd . For , what a slack thing would the world bee , if probable Exceptions of the subjects ( I mean , such as are held noe more than probable by the subjects themselves ) should bee held sufficient ground to disacknowledge their Governour 's right , and alter the present Government ? Would any Government in the world remain on foot three years to an end , if this method were allow'd and practised ; unles , perhaps , force preuaild over reason ? The Bishop had good reason then to omit that which concern'd the nature of his own Exceptions : For , though himself and his friends love extremely to talk prettily , yet they cannot endure the reasons which make up their Discourse should bee brought to the test , or their validity to convince the understanding scann'd ; that is , they love not to speak out whether they bee demonstrative , or probable onely . They dare not assert the former , conscious that their best way of discoursing is onely thetoricall , topicall , and for the most part quibbling and blūdering in a wordish testimony , whence no demonstration , or ( it's proper effect ) conviction is likely to bee expected . Nor yet dare they for shame confess the latter ; knowing that a probability , though never so strong , still leaves room for a may bee-otherwise ; and so can never conclude that the thing must-bee ; that is , can never , without iniury to a rationall nature , claim it's assent that the thing 〈◊〉 : for , how can any man in reason assent that the thing is so upon that motive , which very motive permits that it may not bee so ? It was not therefore dishonesty in the Bishop , going about to impugn his Adversary , to omit one halfe of that which hee grounded himself on ; but a great deal of prudenc● and warines , or indeed a kind of necessity . Secondly proceeding upon this mistake of his own , hee wrangles with us , for calling this our chief objection against them ; as king us if stating the question and objecting bee all one ? No sure ; if wee speak rigorously : but a Charge against one is often call'd , an Objection . Now ours against you ( which you here purposely mutilate ) is this , that you left a preacknowledg'd Ecclesiasticall Authority , upon fantastick Exceptions , that is , unpon uncertain Grounds : Which objection ( if verify'd ) so euidently concludes you wilfull Schismaticks , that it is impossible to bee cloak't or evaded . Now the first part , which cōcerns your actuall reiecting that actuall Authority , is notorious to the whole world , and confest by your selves . The second , that you did it upon uncertain Grounds , your self when you are prest to it will confess also ; for , I presume , you dare not pretend to rigorous demonstration ; Both , because your self would bee the first Protestant that ever pretended it ; as also , because your best Champions grant your faith & it's Grounds but probable . And , should you pitch upon some one best reason or testimony pretended to demonstrate your point , wee should quickly make an end of the Controversy , by showing it short of concluding evidently , as you well know : which makes you alwaies either disclaime , or decline that pretence ; never pitching upon any one pretended conuincing or demonstrative reason which you dare stand to , but hudling together many in a diffused Discourse ; hoping that an accumulation of may-bee will persuade vulgar and half witted understandings that your tenet is certain , & must bee . Thirdly , the Bp. asks us who must put the case , or state the question ? telling us , that if a Protestant do it , it will not bee so undeniably evident . I answer , let the least child put it ; let the whole world put it ; let themselves put it : Do not all these grant & hold that K. H. deny'd the Pope's Supremacy ? Does not all the world see that the pretended Church of England stands now otherwise in order to the Church of Rome , than it did in H. the 7ths dayes ? Does not the Bps. of Schism . c. 7. par . 2. fellow-fencer , Dr. H. confess in expresse terms , And first , for the matter of fact , it is acknowledg'd that in the Reign of K. H. the 8th , the Papall power in Ecclesiasticall affairs , was , both by Acts of Convocation of the Clergy , & by statutes or Acts of Parliament , cast out of this Kingdome ? Was this power it self thus cast out before ? that is , was it not in actuall force till and at this time ? and is not this time extoll'd as that in which the Reformation in this point began ? Wee beg then nothing gratis , but begin our process , upon truth acknowledg'd by the whole world . Our case puts nothing but this undeniable and evident matter of fact : whence wee conclude them , criminally-Schismaticall , unles their Exceptions against this Authority's right bee such as , in their owne nature , oblige the understanding to assent that this Authority was vsurpt ; onely which can iustify such a breach . So that the Bishop first omits to mention the one half , of that on which wee build our charge , ( to wit , the nature of their Exceptions ; ) and , when hee hath done , wilfully mistakes , and mispresents the other : persuading the unwary Reader that the case wee put is involu'd in ambiguities , and may bee stated variously ; whereas 't is placed in as open a manifestation as the sun at noonday , and acknowledg'd universally . In neither of which the Bishop hath approved himself too honest a man. Now , let us see what hee answers to the case it self . It was put down , Schism Disarm . p. 307. thus ; that in the beginning of H. the 8ths reign , the Church of England agreed with that of Rome and all the rest of her Communion , in two points , which were then and are now the bonds of vnity , betwixt all her Members . One concerning faith , the other Government . For faith , her Rule was , that the Doctrines which had been inherited from their forefathers , as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles , were solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory , and nothing in them to bee changed . For Government , her Principle was , that Christ had made S. Peter first , or chief , or Prince of his Apostles ; who was to bee the first Mover under him in the Church after his departure out of this world , &c. and , that the Bishops of Rome , as successours of S. Peter , inherited from him this priuiledge in respect of the successours of the rest of the Apostles ; and actually exercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome , that very year wherein this unhappy separation began . It is noe lesse evident that , in the reigne of Ed the 6th Q. Elizabeth and her successours , neither the former Rule of Vnity of faith , nor this second of Vnity of Government ( which is held by the first ) have had any power in that Congregation , which the Protestants call the English Church . This is our objection against you , &c. This is our case , ioyntly put by us and by the whole world ; which the Bp. calls an Engine , and pretends to take a view of it . But , never did good man look soe asquint upon a thing which hee was concern'd to view , as my L d of Deity does at the position of this plain case . First , hee answers , that wee would obtrude upon them the Church of Rome and it's dependents for the Catholike Church . Whereas , wee neither urge any such thing in that place , nor so much as mention there the word Catholik ; as is to bee seen in my words put down here by himself , p. 3. but onely charge them , that the Church of England formerly agreed with the Church of Rome in these two a foresaid Principles , which afterwards they renounced . In stead of answering positiuely to which , or replying I or noe , the fearfull , Bishop starts a side to this needles disgression . Next , hee tells us what degree of respect they owe , now to the Church of Rome : Whereas the question is not what they owe now , but what they did or acted then ; that is , whether or no they reiected those two Principles of faith and Government , in which formerly they consented with her . To this the wary Bp. saies nothing . After these weak evasions , hee tells us , that the Court of Rome had excluded two third parts of the Catholick Church from their Communion ; that the world is greater than the City : and so runs on with his own wise sayings of the same strain , to the end of the parag . Whereas , the present circumstances inuite him onely to confess or deny what they did ; and whether they renounced those two Principles of Vnity , or no : not to stand railing thus unseasonably upon his own head what our Church did ; shee shall clear herself when due circumstances require such a discourse . Again , whenas wee object that they thus broke from all those which held Communion with the Church of Rome ; hee falls to talk against the Court of Rome : as if all those particular Churches , which held Communion with the see of Rome , had well approved of nor ever abhominated their breach from those two a foresaid Principles ; but the Court of Rome onely . Did ever man look thus awry upon a point which hee aimed to reply to ; or did ever Hocus-pocus strive with more nimble sleights to divert his spectatour's eyes from what hee was about : than the Bp. does to draw of his Readers from the point in hand ? In a word , all that can bee gather'd from him in order to this matter consists in these words [ this pretended separation : ] by which hee seems to intimate his deniall of any separation made in the a foresaid Principles ; but it is so shameles and open an vntruth , that hee dares not own it in express terms ; nor yet , ( such is his shuffling ) will hee confess the contrary . I know his party sometimes endeavours to evade , by saying that our Church caused the breach by excommunicating them : but , ask whether they broke from and renounced that Government ( and so deserved excommunication ) ere they were thus excommunicated by it ; and , their own conscience with the whole world will answer , they did . It is that former breach of theirs , then , and reiection of that Government , which denominates them Schismaticks ; till they can render sufficient , that is , evident Grounds why they reiected it : for , otherwise , nothing is more weak , than to imagine that Governours should not declare themselves publikely and solemnly against the renouncers of their Authority ; or , that a King should not proc●ame for Rebells and incapable of any priuiledges from the commonwealth , those persons who already had disacknowledg'd his Right , and obstinately broken it's laws . Either show us , then , that our Excommunication separated you from your former tenets , to wit , from holding those a foresaid Principles of Vnity in faith and Government ; or else grāt that your selves actually separated from them both , that is , from our Church . This , my Lord , is the separation which uniustify'd , makes a criminall Schism : Excommunication is onely the punishment due to the antecedent crime . Order , which consists in Government being essentiall to a Church if intended to continue , it follows that since Christ intended his Church should continue , hee constituted the order of the Church , otherwise hee had not constituted a Church , since a Church cannot bee without that which is essentiall , to a Church . Wherefore , seing that which Christ instituted is of faith , it follows that order of Government is of faith , and so , must bee , recommended to us by the same Rule that other points of faith are . Hence , speaking of the two Principles , one of Vnity in faith , the other of Vnity in Government , I affirmed that the truth of the latter is included in the former , and hath it's Evidence from it . Must not hee now bee very quarelsome , who can wrangle with such an innocent and plain truth ? The iealous Bishop first alledges , 't is done to gain the more opportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Pope's , into the ancient discipline of the Church . Not a iot , my Lord : the standing to this Rule , to wit , the immediate delivery of fathers to sons attestation , renders it impossible for an usurpation to enter ; Nor can you , or any else instance , that any usurpation either in secular or Ecclesiastical Government ever came in , prerending that tenour ; or show that it ever could , as long as men adhered to that method . It must bee either upon wit explications of word in the laws , or of ambiguous peeces of Antiquity , not upon this immediate delivery from hand to hand , ( in which wee place our Rule of faith ) that encroachments are built . Had wee , then , a mind to obtrude usurpations upon you , wee had recurr'd to testimony-proofs , ( the Protestants onely method ; ) where with hath a large field to maintain a probability-skirmish of the absurdest positions imaginable : not to this Rule of soe vast a multitude of eye-witnesses of visible things from age to age ; Which Rule is as impossible to bee crooked , as it is for a world of fathers to conspire to tell a world of Children this ly , that ten years ago they held and practised what themselves and all the world besides knew they did not . His second exception is far more groundlesly quarrelsom . 'T is against my making two Principles ; one in doctrine , the other in discipline : whereas , euery Child sees that doctrine & discipline , or faith , and Government make manifestly two distinet ranks or Orders ; the one relating immediately to information of the understanding or speculative holding , the other to action . But his reasons why they should bee but one are pretty : because , frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora , It is in vain to make two rules where one will serve . By which maxim , rigorously misunderstood , as 't is by him , one may dispute against the making severall laws , and severall Commandments , with the like Logick , and say , all the treating them with distinction is vain , because this one Commandment to do well , or , to do no ill , includes all the rest . Again , hee imagins , because the truth of one depends on the other , therefore they ought not to bee treated distinctly : as if it were vain or needles , to deduce consequences , or , as if Mathematicians ought not to conclude any thing , but hover still in the generall Principles of Euclid , without making any progresse farther , because the truth of the consequences depends on those Principles . Are these men fit to write Controversies ; who cannot , or will not , write common sence ? After hee had been thus frivolously backward , hee adds , that hee readily admits both my first & second Rule , reduced into one in this subsequent form : those doctrines and that discipline , which wee inherited from our forefathers as the Legacy of Christ & his Apostles , ought solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory , and nothing in them to bee changed that is substantial or essentiall . See here , Reader , the right Protestant method , which is , to bring the Controversy , from a determinate state , to indetermination and confusion ; and , from the particular thing , to common words . Wee point them out a determinate form of Government , to wit , that of one supreme Bishop in God's Church : 't is known what it means : 't is known that the acknowledgment of that Government is now , and was at the time of the breach , the bond of Vnity between those Churches which held that Government , of which the Church of England was one : 't is known they renounced this form of Government , that is , that , which was and still is , to the Church they formerly communicated with , a bond of Vnity in discipline . Again , 't is known that wee hold the voice of the Church , that is , the consent of Catholick fathers immediately attesting that they received this doctrine from their forefathers , infallible ; and , that none cannot bee ignorant of what their fathers teach them & bring them up in : Which immediate receiving it from fathers wee call , here , inheritance . These , I say , are determinate points , manifesting themselves in their known particularities Now , the Bishop , instead of letting us know , I or noe , whether they broke that Principle of Vnity in discipline ( which 't is evident they did , by renouncing the Pope's Authority ) or that Principle of Vnity in doctrine , to wit , Tradition , delivery , or handing down by immediate forefathers , ( which 't is evident they did , out of the very word , Reformation , which they own & extoll ; Or , instead of telling us what particular Rule of faith , what particular form of Government , they have introduc't into God's Church in room of the former ; He refers us to Platonick Ideas of both , to bee found in Concavo Lunae ; wrapping them up in such generall terms , as hee may bee 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 Bap●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 cōtracted 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 cog●itionem veritatis conuerti , to those who are willing to ●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 Laym●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 th●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 Protestāts , 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 success●urs of S. Peter , inherited his priviledg●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 pa●t of my proposition , and changes the busines from an evident matter of fact and acknowledged by Protestants , ( viz : that the Church of Englands Principle was actually such , and such at that time ) into the point and tenet it self , which is question'd and controverted b●tween us . His words are these , p. 6. Thirdly h●e addeth that , [ the Bishops of Rome , as successours of S. I●e er , inherited his priviledges ; ] whereas hee ought to have rep●esented my words thus , that the Principle agreed on by the Church of England and the Church of Rome before the breach was such ; and th●n have told us what hee thought of it , by ●●her expressing a deniall , or ● grant . But positivenes , even in things manifest and acknowledg'd , is a thing th● Bishop hates wi●h all his heart : for , were I or noe said to any point , the discourse might proceed rigo●ously upon it , which would marr all the Bp voluntary talk . It follows in my words put down by him , p. 6. that the Bishops of Rome actually exercised this power ( viz : of first mover in the Church ; S. Peter's priviledge ) in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome , that very year wherein this unhappy separation began Mee thanks , it is not possible to avoid being absolute here . But , nothing is impossible to the Bp. hee either will not speak out at all , or , if hee does , it must bee of no lower a strain than flat contradiction Hee tells us , first , that it cometh much short of the truth in one respect : and why ? for the Pope's ( saith hee ) exercised much more power in those countries which gave them leave , than ever S. Peter pretended to . So that according to the Bp. hee did not exercise S. Peter's lesser power , because hee exercised a power far greater , that is hee did not exercise S. Peter's power , because hee exercised S. Peter's power , and much more ; which is as much as to say , Totum est minus parte , and more does not contain lesse A hopefull disputant , who chuses rather to run upon such rocks , then to grant that the Pope actually govern'd as supreme in those countries which were actually under him A point which it is shamefull to deny , dangerous positively to confess ; and therefore necessary to bee thus blunder'd . Secondly , hee tells us , that it is much more short of that universall Monarchy , which the Pope did then and doth still claim . And why ? for ( saith hee ) as I have already said ( observe the strength of his discourse , his saying is proving ) two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion ; meaning the Greeks , Armenians , &c. Are moderate expressions of shamelesnes sufficient to character this man , who in every line manifests himself in the highest degree deserving them ? Our position as put down even by himself was this , that the Pope's did actually , then exercise this power in those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome ; and the Bps answer comes to this , that hee did not exercise it in those countries which kept not Communion with the Church of Rome . But , to give the Reader a satisfactory answer even to the Bps impertinences , I shall let him see that the Pope exercis'd his power at that time even over those countries ; as much as it can bee expected any Governour can or should do over revolters , whom hee cannot otherwise reduce . As , then , a Governour exercises his power over obedient subjets , by cherising them and ordering them and their affairs soe as may best conduce to their common good ; but cannot exercise it over contumacious and too potent Rebells , any other way than by proclaiming them Outlaws and incapable of priviledges or protection from the laws of the Commonwealth : so , neither could it bee imagi●'d or expected by any rationall man that the Pope , in those circumstances , though hee were supposed and granted by both sides law●ull Governour ) could exercise power over them in any other way , h●n onely in i●flicting on them Ecclesiasticall punishments or censures , and excommunicating or outlawing them from that Commonwealth which remain'd obed en● to him ; as he Bp. complainingly grant ; hee did . Having thus shustled in every tittle of the sta●e of the question , hee accuses his Refuter that hee comes not neer the true question at all . Can there bee a more candid stating a question and free from all equivocation , than to beg●n with a known matter of fact and acknowle●ge● by bo●h sides ; and thence to conclude those acters , 〈◊〉 is , breakers , Schismaticks , unles they can bring ●●ffic●ent reasons to warrant such a breach ? But , let u● exami● a lit●l● the ground of his Exception . The true question ( saith hee ) is not , whether the Bishop of R●me had any Authority in the Catholi●e Church . Good Reader ask the Bp. whether his Refuter , or any Catholike , or even moderate Protestant , ever mou●d such a question : and , wh●ther it bee not frivolousnes and insincerity in the abstract , to impose on us such as stating of the question ; whenas every child sees , it is not barely his hav●ng any Authority , but his having a supreme Authority , which is question'd and deba●ed between us and the Protestant ? It follows in him immediately , The Pope had Authority in his Diocese , as a Bishop , in his Province , as a Metropolitane , in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs ; and all over , as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church , or S. Peter . Where , all the former words are totally besides the purpose , nor ever made the question by us , as the Bp. calumniates . But , the last words ▪ which grant the Pope had Authority all over , as successour of S. Peter , deserve consideration and thanks too , if meant really : for , these words grant him an Authority more than Patriarchall ; nor a ●●y primacy onely but an Authori●y all over , that is a power to act as the highest in Gods Church and in any part of the Church , that is , an universall Iurisdiction all over or over all the Church , at least in some cases . Now , in this consists the sustance of the Papall Authority ; and had they of England retain'd still practically a subjection to this Authority , as thus character'd ; they had not been excommunicated upon this score onely . But , the misery is , that this our back-friend , after hee hath given us al● this fair promising language , that the Pope's Authority is higher than Patriarchall , ( as the Climax in his discourse signifies ; ) that it is all over or universall ; and lastly , that hee hath this universall Authority as hee is successour of S. Peter : after all this , I say , if hee been prest home to declare himself ; as before hee granted S. Peter the first mover in Church , and then told us that , in a right sence , it meant but a Primacy of order ; so hee will tell us the same of these flattering expressions , and th●t the words [ Authority ] doth not , in a right sence , signify a power to act as a Governour , ( though all the world else understand it so ) but onely a right to sit , talk , or walk first : Et sic vera rerum nomina amisimus . Thus , my Refuter hath shown that I stated the question wrong : now , let us hear him state it right . The true question ( saith hee ) is , what are the right bounds and limits of this Authority : and then reckons up a company of particularities , some true , most of them co●●erning the extent of the Pope's Authority i●self and debated amōgst our owne Canon-Lawyers , some flat lies and calumnies ; as , whether the Pope have power to sell palls , pardons , and Indulgences , to impose pensions at his pleasure , to infringe the liberties and customes of whole nations , to deprive Princes of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their Allegiance , &c. Was ever such stuff brought by a Controvertist ? or was ever man soe frontles as to make these the true state of the question between us ; that is , to pretēd that our Church holds these things as of faith ? To manifest more the shallownes of my Adversary ; the Reader may please to take notice of the difference between the substance of the Pope's Authority , as held by us , and the extent of it The substance of it consists in this , that hee is Head of the Church , that is , first mover in it , and that hee hath Authority to act in it after the nature of a first Governour . This is held with us to bee of faith , and acknowledg'd unanimously by all the faithfull as come from Christ and his Apostles ; so that none can bee of our Communion who deny it : nor is this debated at all between Catholike & Catholike , but between Catholike and Heretike onely . Hence , this is held by our Church as a Church ; that is , as a multitude receiving it upon their Rule of faith , universall Attestation of immediate Ancestours , as from theirs , and so upwards as from Christ ; and not upon criticall debates or disputes of learnedmen . The , extent of this Authority consists in determining whether this power of thus acting reaches to these and these particularities or no ; the resolution of which is founded in the deductions of divines , Canon-Lawyers and such like learnedmen : and , though sometimes some of those points bee held as a common opinion of the schoolmen , and ( as such ) embraced by many Catholikes ; yet , not by them as faithfull , that is , as relying ●pon their Ancestours , as from theirs , as from Christ ; but , as relying upon the learnedmen in Canon-law ; and ; implicitely , upon the reasons which they had to judge so and the generality's accepting their reasons for valid : which is as much as to say , such points are not held by a Church as a Church , no more than it is that there is an Element of fire in Concavo Lunae , or that Columbus found out the Indies . The points , therefore , are such , that hee who holds or deems otherwise may still bee held one of the Church or of the Commonwealth of the faithfull : nor bee blameable for holding otherwise , if hee have better reasons for his tenet than those other learned men had for theirs , as long as hee behaves himself quietly in the said Commonwealth . Perhaps a parallel will clear the matter better . The acknowledgment of the former Kings of England to bee supreme Governours in their Dominions was heretofore ( as wee may say ) a point of civill faith , nor could any bee reputed a good subject who deny'd this ; in the undifputable acknowledgment of which cōsisted the substance of their Authority : But , whether they had power to raise ship money , impose subsidies , &c. alone and without a Parliament , belong'd to the extent of their Authority , was subject to dispute , and the proper task of Lawyers ; nor consequently did it make a man an Outlaw , or ( as wee may say ) a civill Schismatick to disacknowledge such extents of his Authority , so hee admitted the Authority it self : I concieve the parallell is soe plain , that it will make it 's owne application . This being settled , as I hope it is ; so let it stand a while , till wee make another consideration . A Controversy ( in the sence which our circumstances determine it ) is a dispute about faith ; and so a Controvertist , as such , ought to impugn a point of f●ith ; that 〈◊〉 hee ought to i● pugn that which is held by a Church as a Church , or that which is held by a Church upon her Rule of faith Hence , if the Government of that Church bee held of faith according to it's substance , and not held of faith according to it's extent ; hee ought to impugn it according to the substance of the said Government , and not it's extent : otherwise , hee totally prevaricates from the proper office of a Controvertist , not impugning faith but opinions , no● that Church as a Church and his Adversary ; but , falsly supposing himself as it were one of that company , and to hold all the substance of it's Authority , hee sides with one part of the true subjects and disputes against the other , in a point indifferent to faith , unconcerning his duty . These things , Reader , observe with attention ; and then bee thine own judge , whether hee play not the Mountebank with thee instead of the Controvertist , who , in his former book , pretended to vindicate the Church of England ( which renounced the substance of this Authority ) by impugning the extent of it onely : and here , undertaking to correct his Refuter and state the question rightly , first grants , in very plain but wrong mean't terms , the whole question , to wit that the Pope hath Authority over the whole Church as successour of S. Peter ; and then tells thee , that the true question is about the extent of it and what are the right limits and bounds of this Authority , which kind of questions yet hee knows well enough are debated by the obedient and true members of that Commonwealth whence hee is Outlaw'd and which hee pretends to impugn . His 8th page presents the Reader with a great mistake of mine : and 't is this , that I affirmed it was and is the constant beleef of the Casholike world , ( by which I mean all in Communion with the Church of Rome , whom onely I may call Catholikes ) that these two Principles were Christ's owne ordination recorded in Scrpture . Whereas , hee cannot but know , that all our Doctour●s de facto did and still do produce places of Scripture to prove that former Principle , to wit that Tradition is the Rule of faith , as also to prove S. Peter's higher power over the Apostles : nor is it new that the succession of Pastours , till wee all meet in the Vnity of Glory , should bee Christ's own Ordination , and recorded there likewise : Nor can I devise upon what Grounds hee and his fellow-Bishops of England , who hold Scripture onely the Rule of faith , can maintain their Authority to bee iure divino , unles they hold likewise that it bee there recorded , and bee Christ's Ordination , that following Pastours succed into the Authority of their predecessours . But the pretended mistake lies here , that whereas I said the Bishops of Rome inherited this priviledge from S. Peter , m●aning that those who are Bp● of Rome being S. Peter's successours , inherited this power ; hee will needs take mee in a reduplicative sence , as if I spoke of the Bishop of Rome , as of Rome : and then hee runs on , wildly and boldly challenging mee that I cannot show out of Scripture that S. Peter was at Rome , that our own Authours say S. Peter might have dy'd at Antioch , and the succession into his power have remain'd th●re , &c. Answers soe frivolous , soe totally impertinet to the point in hand , that I wonder how any man can have the patience to read such a trifler or the folly as to think him worth heeding . To omitt that hee pick't these words , which hee impugns here , out of a paragraph following a leaf after , which totally concern'd a dangerous and fundamentall point , as shall presently bee seen ; and so , it importing him to neglect it , hee cull'd out and mistakingly glanc't at these few loose words , which hee thought by a device of his own he could best deal with , for a colour of his necessary negligence . What hee adds of the Council of Chalcedon hath been answer'd an hundred times over , and by mee , Schism Disarm . p. 109. 110. &c. nor deserves any reiteration , till hee urge it farther ; especially being soe rawly put down . Onely because hee builds upon their giving equall priviledges to Constantinople ▪ without manifesting what those priviledges were : wee shall take leave to think that , as Rome still remain'd first in order , ( as his late words granted , and Protestants confess ) notwithstanding those equall priviledges ; so , for any thing hee knows , it might still remain Superiour in Iurisdiction ; and , till hee evince that priviledges in that place mean't Iurisdiction , to which the word will bee very loath , hee is far from bringing it to our question , or to any purpose . His next task is a very substantiall and important one , striking at the Rule and Root of all our faith : yet , by voluntary mistaking no less than every syllable of it , hee quickly makes clear work with it . Hee was told , that wee hold our first Principle by this manifest Evidence , that still the latter age could not bee ignorant of what the former believed , and , as long as it adhered to that method , nothing could bee alter'd in it Which the wily Bp. answers , by telling us that the Tradition of some particular persons or some particular Churches , in particular points or opinions of an inferiour nature , which are neither soe necessary to hee known , nor firmly believed , nor so publikely and uniuersally professed , nor derived downwards from the Apostolicall age by such unin●or upted succession , doth produce no such cer●a●nty either of Evidence or adherence . Where . First , hee knows , wee mean Tradition of all the Churches in Communion with the see of Rome , that is , of all who have not renounced this Rule of immediate Tradition : for all who differ from her never pretended this immedi●te delivery , for those points in which they differ from her , but receded from that Rule ; as the Apology for Tradition hath manifested , indeed plain reason may inform us : It being impossible and self condemning , where there was an Vnity before , for the beginners of a Novelty to pretend their immediate fathers had taught them that which the whole world sees they did not . Now , the Bp. talkes of Traditions of some particular persons , or some particular Churches : desirous to make his Readers believe wee rely on such a Tradition and so defective as hee expresses ; that is , hee makes account our pretended Tradition must not bee styl'd universall , unles it take in those persons and those Churche also who have formerly renounced and receded from this Rule of Tradition . Which is as much as if hee had said , a thing cannot bee absolutely white , unles it bee black too . Secondly , wee speake of believing , that is , of points of faith : but , the Bp. talkes of opinions , and those not concerning ones neither , but ( as hee styles them ) opinions of an inferiour nature . And then , having , by this sleight , changed faith into opinion , hee runs giddily forwards , telling us fine things concerning questionable and controverted points , of Opinions in the Schools , and how hard a thing it is to know which opinion is most current , &c. Is not this sincerely done and strongly to the purpose ? Thirdly , hee cants in these words [ So necessary to bee known . ] I ask , are they necessary or no ? If they bee not necessary , why does hee seem to grant they are , by saying onely that they are not so necessary ? But , if they bee necessary , then why does hee call them opinions onely , and that too of an inferiour nature ? Can that bee necessary to bee held or known , which hath no necessary Grounds to make it either held or known ? Opinions have neither . Fourthly , hee speaks of points not so publike●y professed : whereas , every point of faith is publike and notorious ; being writ in the hearts of the faithfull by the teaching of their Parents and Pastouts , sign'd by all their expressions , and seal'd by their actions : Nor is there any point of faith ( for example , in which the Protestant differs from us , which is not thus visible and manifesting our Church now , and was then when they first broke from that doctrine of their immediate ? ●ncestours . Fifthly , hee speaks of points not universally professed : that is , if any heretick , receding from immediate Tradition of his fathers , shall start a novelty , & propagate it to posterity ▪ the Tradition and profession of this point in the Church must not bee said to bee universall , because that heretick professes and delivers otherwise : and so , Socinians , by the Bps argument , may assist their cause and say , it was not universally professed that Christ was God , because the Arians anciently profest otherwise . The like service it would do an Arian or any other Heretick , to alledge ( as the Bp. does ) that the Christian world must bee vnited , otherwise the Tradition is not certain ; for , as long as that Heretick has a mind to call himself and his friends Christians ( which hee will ever do , ) so long hee may cheaply cavill against the Authority of the whole Church . But , empty words shall not serve the Bps turn : Let him either show us some more certain Rules to know who are Christians , who not , that is , some certainer Rule of faith than is the immediate & practicall delivery of a world of fathers to a world of sons : o● else let him know , that all those who have receded from this immediate delivery , ( as did acknowledgd'ly , the Protestants at the time of their Reformation , as also the Greeks , Arians , &c. in those points of faith in which they differ from us ) are not truly , but improperly , call'd Christians ; neither can they claim any share in Tradition or expect to bee accounted fellow-deliverers of faith , who have both formerly renounced that Rule and broach't now doctrines against it , which like giddy whirlpools run crossely to that constantly-and directly flowing stream . Lastly , hee requires to the Evidence and certainty of Tradition , that it bee derived downwards from the Apostles , by such an uninterrupted succession . Wee are speaking of the Rule of faith itself , that is , of Tradition or the deriving points of faith from the Apostles immediately from age to age , ( or , if hee pleases , from 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 undeni●ble Evidence that it came from the Apostles ; If hee reflect , hee shall find that there is scarce one point of fai●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 fac●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 ●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 defe●ding against him , and have sufficiently exprest my self , p. 307. l. 1● &c. by the words first Mover ●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 ●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 Opponēt 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 h●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 lef● 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 ●th's d●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 ●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 impertinēt : first ▪ in answering of the Primitive times , to an objection concerning the time of H. the 8. Secondly , whenas I begun with an evident matter of fact , beyond alldispute , and thence grounded a progress to a decisive discourse , in skipping aside to a point mainly disputable between us , in stead of answering to that Evidence , and , which is still weaker , by thinking to carry that whole matter by barely saying it . And , if the Reader please now to review the Bishops first Section with a narrower eye , I am confident hee will percieve that ( besides that hee hath not said a word in answer to us ) above three quarters of the said Section is made up of this stuff : to wit , of reuolving and repeating over his own tenets and the very question , and talking any thing upon his own Authority without a syllable of proof ; and , twice or thrice , where hee pretends any , they are mere falsifications & abuses ; as hath been shown . I must request the Reader , whom the love of truth may invite to seek satisfaction in perusing a book of this nature , to right himself the Bp. and mee , by giving a glance back upon my words , p. 306. 307. where I affirmed that it would appear that Schism was iustly charged upon his Church with undeniable Evidence of faith , by two things , viz : out of the very position , of the case , and out of the nature of his Exceptions . How hee hath reply'd to the first , which is the position of the case , hath already been shown : to wit , that hee would not speak one positive word , I or no to a plain matter of faith ; nor bee willing to step forwards one step by answering directly to any thing which neerly concern'd the question ; but stood continually capering and flickhering up and down in the air , at the pleasure of his own fancy . As for the second thing , to wit , that it would appear out of the nature of 〈◊〉 Exceptions ; I show'd that hee , in reciting my charge , had purposely omitted that as loath his Exceptions should bee brought to the test of Reason , or have their sufficiency examin'd . And , to let thee see that hee did this purposely , looke Schism Disarm'd p. 309. and thou shalt see the whole paragraph , which concern'd that second point , omitted , without any Reply pretended . I shall therefore repeat it again here , and leave it to the Bishop's second thoughts . They must remember how their forefathers , who began that which they call Reformation , were themselves of this profession before their pretended Reform . They ought to weigh what reasons their Ancestours should have had to introduce such an alteration . They must confess themselves guilty in continuing the breach , unles they can alledge causes sufficient to have begun it , had the same ancient Religion descended to these dayes . For , the constant beleef of the Catholike world was , at the time of our division , and still is , that these Principles are Christ's own ordination , recorded in Scripture , derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our nature is capable of to attain assurance what was done in Antiquity : Evidences inviolable by any humane either poweror proof , except perfect and rigorous demonstration ; to which our Adversaries doe not so much as pretend ; and , therefore , without farther dispute , remain unanswerably convicted of Schism . I suppose I need not inform the Reader , what service it would have done to the Controversy , and how necessary it was for my Ld D. to tell us , whether his reasons were rigourously evidencing or demonstrative ; or else , that less than demonstrative reasons , that is , probable ones would serve : This would quickly have decided the busines . For , nothing is easier than to show , that a wrongly pretended demonstration does not conclude evidently or convince that the thing is ; nothing easier , than to show , out of the very terms , that a probability cannot rationally convince the understanding : But , the danger of this disadvantage and the fear of this quick decision is the reason his Ld. will tell us neither . Thus , Protestant Reader , thou seest how dextrously thy Bp. hath behaved himself in answering both parts of our charge against him ; and which alone fundamentally concern our question : to wit , how hee hath , by shuffling about , avoided to say a positive word to one ; and totally omitted so much as to mention the other . And this , in the Bishops right sence , is call'd vindicating the Church of England and replying to S. W. Sect. 2. How my Ld of Derry goes about to acquit the Protestants both ( a tanto ) and ( a toto ) as hee styles it : grounding his violent pr●sumptions of their innocency on contradictions both to common reason and his good Friend Dr. H. on his own bare word that his party are Saints ; and his non-sencicall plea that those who began first to separate from our Church , were , ere that , united to it . HItherto I have been somewhat larger in replying , than I intended , because the former points were fundamentally concerning and totally decisive of the question . His Exceptions ( since hee dares not own them for demonstrations , ) are , consequently , in our case , trifles , toyes , and nothing to the purpose : and therefore , as they cannot challenge any at all , so I ought not to wrong my self in giving them too large an Answer ; unles in those places where they touch upon a point that is more important . In the first place hee maintains , that , it many wayes acquits the Protestants continuing the breach , because , not they , but the Roman-Catholikes themselves did make the first separation . Wee will omit the perfect non-sence of this plea ; which equally acquits any Villain in the world , who insists in the steps of his forefather Villains . For , may not hee argue against honest men by the same Logick , and say , that they are acquitted ; because , not Villains , but they who were honest men formerly , begun first the Villany : It being equally infallible and necessary , that hee who first turn'd naught , was , ere hee turn'd so , good before ; as it is , that hee who first separated was , ere hee separated , united to that Church , that is , a Roman Catholike . But I have say'd enough of this , Part 1. p. 92. 93. therefore : let us now examin his reasons , why this many wayes ( as hee sayes ) acquits them . First , hee sayes , it is a violent presumption of our guilt , that our own best friends did this . The word best might have been left out : they were ever accounted better friends who remain'd in their former faith ; and the other Bps look't upon as Schismaticks , by the obedient party . But yet , it might seem some kinde of argument against us , did those , who were friends in all other respects , voluntarily oppose us in this , and out of a free and unbiassed choice ; as the Bp. must pretend , else hee does nothing . Let us examin this then . Your own good friend , Dr. H. shall give you satisfaction in that point ( of Schism p. 136 ) where , speaking of this Act of the Clergy in renouncing the Authority of the Roman see , ( the palpable truth obliging him ) hee hath these words , It is easy to beleeve , that nothing but the apprehension of dangers , which hung overthem by a premunire incurred by them , could probably have inclined them to it . Thus hee . The , violent presumption , then of our guilt , which you imagin concluded hence , is turn'd into a iust presumption , or rather a confest Evidence , of the King 's violent cruelty and their fearfull weaknes . Rare Grounds doubtles , to acquit you for being led by their Authority , or following their example . Secondly , hee tells us that , though it do not alwaies excuse a toto , from all guilt , yet it excuses a tanto , and lessens the guilt ; to bee misled by the examples and Authority of others , &c. Let us examin this , as apply'd to the Protestants . How could they think their example to bee follow'd or their Authority to bee rely'd on , whom they confess to have done what they did out of fear , that is , out of passion , and not out of the pure verdict of reason & conscience ? Again , if their example were to bee follow'd , why do not they follow it rather in repenting of their Schism , and renouncing it ; as those Bps did after the King's death ? since , the imminent fear , which aw'd them at the time of their fall and during the King's life , ioyn'd with their retraction after his death , of what they had done , render it a thousand times more manifest that their conscience took part with the obedient side , had they had courage enough to stand to it . Moreover , sometimes , the first beginners of a fault may bee less culpable then their followers ; according to the degrees of the provocations which press upon their weaknesses . Theirs wee have seen to bee no less than the expectation of death and destruction ; such was the violence of the King 's in humane cruelty , and their present disadvantageous case which expos'd them to it . Your con●inuance in Schism , compar'd to the motiv●s of their fault , is , in a manner , gratis ; All your reason , heretofore , of thus continuing being for your Livings and interest ; and , at present , onely a vain-glorious itch to approve your selves to your party for braue fellows ; in railing against the Pope and defending a Chimera bom●inans in vacuo ( the Church of England ) found no where save in the imaginary space of your own fancies ▪ Thirdly , hee assures us , that , in this case , it doth acquit them not onely a tanto , but , a toto , from the least degree of guilt ; as long as they carefully seek after truth , and do not violate the dictates of their own conscience : and then bids mee , if I will not beleeve him , beleeve S. Austin ; who sayes , that they who defend not their false opinions with pertinacity , but are ready to embrace truth and correct their errours when they finde them , are not Hereticks . I Answer , S. Austin sayes well ; onely obstinacy makes an heretick : and so far wee beleive him . But , does S. Austin say that Bp. Bramhall ad his fellows are not obstinate , or that they neglect not to seek , not refuse not to embrace truth found ; and , by consequence , are not Hereticks and Schismaticks ? The generall words of the father signify nothing to your purpose ; unles they bee apply'd to your party : and who makes the application ? The Bp. himself : and upon what Grounds ? upon his own bare word ; and then cries , They are totally acquited from Schism : That is , hee makes an acquittance himself for himself ; writes it with his own hand , set his own seal to it , and subscribes it with his own name ; and then brings it into the Court to clear himself of the whole debt , and that by his own Authority . Reader , trust neither side as they barely testify of themselves : but , trust what Evident reason and thine own eyes tell thee . Reason tells thee , 't is evident they renounc't those tenets which were the Principles of Vnity to the former Church both in faith and Government : Reason tells thee , that such a fact is , in it's own nature , schismaticall ; unles they can produce sufficient motives to iustify it : Reason tells thee , that noe motives less than certain , that is , demonstrative ones , can suffice to alledge for such a revolt ; which yet they never pretend to : Therefore , reason tells thee and any one who understands morality and nature , as evidently as that two and three are five , that their revolt did not spring from the pure light of reason ; but , from an irrationall Principle , that is ▪ from passion and vice : And , so , wee cannot but judge them obstinate and , consequently , Schismaticks ; unles they can show us these sufficient , that is , demonstrative reasons to excuse their , otherwise manifestly schismaticall fact : or , if wee do , wee must renounce the light of our own reason to do them an undeserved favour . Thus much in generall . Now , as for this Bp. in particular ; Thou hast seen him shuffle up and down when hee should have answer'd to the charge objected : Thou hast seen him wilfully mistake all over , to evade answering : Thou hast seen him totally omit so much as to mention one half of the charge , and totally to avoid the whole import , nay , every tittle of the other . There needs nothing but thine own eyes , directed by any first Section , to make all this evident to thee . 'T is by these evident testimonies of thine eyes , these undeniable verdicts of thy reason , Reader , by which thou must judge of these men , whether they bee carefully inquisitive after & readily embrace the truth , or rather bee obstinate Schismaticks ; and not by the dark holes of their consciences ; which they assert to bee sincere by their bare sayings ouely ; obtrude them , thus weakly authoriz'd upon they easy credulity , and then tell thee thou must beleeve S. Austin that they are guiltles and acquitted from Schism . In the second place , I glanced at the inconsequence of his proof , that those Bishops were not Protestants because they persecuted Protestants ; instancing in some sects of Protestants , which persecuted others . Hee replies : what then were Watham and Heath , &c. all Protestants ? Then , My Ld ( which is onely the question between us ) your argument was naught : for , let them bee accidentally what they will , you cannot conclude them no Protestants from the persecuting Protestants ; as long as 't is shown and known , that those who were Protestants did the same . Secondly , if they were Protestants , hee demands , of which sect they were ? I answer , that , as , between every species of colour which wee have names for , there are hundreds of middle degrees which have no names ; or , as , in a perpetuall motion , there are millions of unnam'd proportions sow'd all along in it's progress , to whose quantities wee can give no particular names : so , within the latitude of the name Protestant or Reformer and every sect of it , there are thousands of others soe petite and minute , that they have not deserved a name from the world . I see the Bp. mistakes us and his own sect ; for hee makes account the Protestant Profession and it's subordinate sects are fixt things , which may bee defined : whereas Experience teaches us , that the fellow in the fable might as easily have taken measure of the Moon , to fit her right with a coat , as one can imagin one notion to fit the word Protestant . 'T is ever in motion , like the rowling sea , and therefore hath such an alloy of no ens in it , that it admits noe positive definition ; but , must bee described , like a privation in order to the former habit . No-Papist and a Reformer is the best character I can make of it . Since , then , those Bishops were Reformers and no-Papists , ( for they renounced the Pope's Authority which gives this denomination , & reformed in that point : ) it follows , that they were Protestants , though the new-born thing was not as yet christend with any other name than that common one of Reformation ▪ But , my Ld. D. makes account that none can bee a Protestant , unles hee hold all which the now-Protestants doe : Whereas , 't is against nature and reason , to expect that the Protestants could at first fall into all their present negative tenets ; nemo repentè fit turpissimus . The former faults must by degrees get countenance , by growing vulgar & quotidian , an by little & little digest their shamefulnes ; ere the world could bee prepared to receive or men's minds apt and audacious enough to broach new ones . First , they renounc't one point , then another , and so forwards , till at lenghth they have arrived to Quakerism ; which therefore is the full-grown fruit of the Reformation . Thirdly , whereas I told him , those Bishops , by renouncing the Pope , held the most essentiall point of their Reformation , and so had in them the quintessence of a Protestant : The Bp. first , calls this , our Reformation ; as if wee had not ever held them Schismaticks , that is , separated from our Church , for doing so . Since , then , they went out from us , by that fact ; they left to bee of us : and , if they were not of us , how was it our Reformation , in any other sence , than as the Rebellion of those who were true subjects before is to bee imputed to those who remain true subjects still ? was ever common sence so abus'd ? Next , hee braggs , that , then ( to wit , if renouncing the Pope bee essentiall to a Protestant ) the Primitive Church were all Protestants ; which is onely sayd , and flatly false : that then , all the Greci●n , Russian , Armenian , Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day ; which is onely said , again , and partly true , partly false , and that which is true onely steads him soe far , as to evince that the Protestants are not the onely men but have fellow-Schismaticks : And lastly , that then , they want not store of Protestants even in the bosome of the Roman Church it self ; which ( to speak moderately ) is an impudent falshood , and a plain impossibility . For , who ere renounces the substance of the Pope's Authority and his being Head of the Church , doth , ipso facto , renounce the Rule of Vnity of Government in our Church , and , by consequence , the Rule of Vnity of faith , which Grounds and asserts the former ; that is , such a man renounces and breaks from all the Vnity of our Church , and , so , becomes totally disunited from our Church : Now , how one , who is totally disunited and separated from the whole body of our Church , can bee intimately united to her still , no understanding but the BP s can reach ; which , as Mithridates could use poison for his daily food , can , without difficulty , digest contradictions , and findes them more connatural and nutritive to his cause than the solidest demonstrations . Now , if my L d D. bee not yet satisfy'd with my reasons , p. 311. that the renouncing the Pope is essentiall to Protestantism ; to which yet hee is pleased to give no answer : I send him to learn it of his friend , Dr. H. who ( of Schism p. 145. l. 5. ) seems even to strain sence it felf to express this ; calling this disclaiming the Pope's power tbe Bottome upon which the foundation of Reformation was laid , that is , the foundation of their foundation , their fundamentall of fundamentalls . Now then , how those Bishops should not bee then Protestants , who held the fundamentall of fundamentalls of Protestantism , passes my skill to explicate , and , as I am persuaded , my L ds , too . Sect. 3. How my L d of Derry endeavours to clear his Church from Schism , by bringing Protestants to speak in their own cause , nay the very Act or statute for which wee accuse them , as an undeniable Testimony for them . Likewise , how hee produces for his chief Plea a Position opposit both to his own and our party's acknowledgment , nay , to the very eysight of the whole world ; twisting in it self a multitude of most direct contradictions ; and , lastly , quite annihilating at once all the Papists in the world . HIs third Section pretends to make good his second grownd for dividing from the Church ; which was this ; because , in the separation of England from Rome , there was no now law made , but onely their ancient liberties vindicated . This I calld ( as I could do no less ) notoriously false , and impudence it self ; alledging that a law was made , in H. the 8th's time , and an oath invented , by which it was given the King to bee Head of the Church , and to have all the power which the Pope did , at that time , possess in England . Hee asks , if this bee the language of the Roman Schools ? No , my L d , it is and ought to bee the language of every sincere man who bears any respect to truth , shame , or honesty , against those who are profest and sworn Enemies of all three ; in case his circumstances have put him upon the task to lay such persons open and confute them . Hee appeals to any indifferent Christian judge . I decline not the Tribunal ; nay more , I shall bee willing to stand to the award of the most partiall Protestant living , who hath but so much sincerity as to acknowledge the Sun's shining at noonday , or that the same thing cannot both bee & not bee at once . But. First , hee goes about to acquit himself , by confessing that hee sayd no new law was made then ; but denying that hee said no new statute was made . Wee will not wrangle with him about the words ; onely , I say , if there were something new , it was new ; and , a statute , made and approved by the King and his Parliament , ( as this was , ) wee Englishmen use to term a law : if then there were a new statute made ( as hee confesses , ) I concieve I have not wrong'd in the least the common language of England , to call it a new law . But , his meaning is , that King H. the 8th did noe new thing when hee renounced the Pope's Authority , but what had been done formerly ; and therefore . Secondly , hee quotes Fitz-herbert and my Lord Cook , who say , that this statute was not operative to create a new law , but declarative to restore an ancient law : That is , hee quotes two of his own party to prove hee sayd right ; and two Protestants to speak in behalf of Protestants . Convincing proofs , doubtles against us . Thirdly , hee promises to make it appear undeniably . Whence , or from what Authority ? from the very statute it self ; which sayes , That England is an Empire , and that the King as Head of the body politick , consisting of the Spirituality and temporality , hath plenary power to render finall iustice for all matters . That is , hee quotes the schismaticall King himself and his schismaticall Parliament , ( who made this statute , ) to speak in their own behalfs . Does such a trifler deserve a Reply ? who , in a dispute against us , cites the authorities of those very persons against whom wee dispute ; nay , that very Act of theirs which wee are challenging to have been schismaticall : and relies upon them for undeniable Testimonies . Fourthly , hee alledges another statute , made in the 24. of King H. the 8th : the best hee could pick out , you may bee sure ; yet , there is not a syllable in it concerning spirituall Iurisdiction ; directly , that is , not a syllable to his purpose . 'T is this , The Crown of England hath been so free at all times , that it hath been in no earthly subjection ; but immediately subjected to God in all things touching it's Regality , and to no other ; and ought not to bee submitted to the Pope . Wee are disputing about spirituall Iurisdiction , and whether it were due to the Pope : and , the Bp. brings a statute which fpeaks of the Crown of England it self , as not to bee submitted to the Pope , as touching it's Regality ; that is , a statute which expresly speaks of temporall Iurisdiction . Hee tells us , that Ecclesiasticall greivances are mention'd in that statute ; but sleightly omits so much as to name them , much less to urge them ; which were they worth it , wee may bee sure hee would have done with a triumph . And , besides , hee knows wee hold every good King is to take order to see Ecclesiasticall grievances remedy'd , and the Canons of the Church observ'd : Nay , hee knows ( if hee knows any thing ) our own Lawyers grant that Ecclesiasticall affairs sometimes fall under temporall power indirectly ; as , on the other side , temporall affairs fall indirectly under the Ecclesiasticall . Yet , that there is any more than this , nay even so much in this statute my L d D. hath not shown us ; and , if wee will bee judged by the words of the statute which hee cites , they look quite another way . But , what matters it what this statute sayes ? being made two years after his unlawfull marriage with Anna Bullon : which was the source of all his rebellion ; intended , in all Likelihood , when that match was made up . As for his pretence that I conceal'd some of his particulars ; hee knows , I undertook no more than to answer the substance , and to show that such kindes of particularities were not worth alledging : as I did in this very place , and shall do again presently more amply . Fifthly , hee quarrells with mee for calling his Authorities , meer Allegations , which hee tells us are authentick Records , &c. whereas my words were onely these , ( p. 311. l. 30. ) that hee brought diverse allegations , in which the Pope's pretences were not admitted , &c. Now , I concieve , a Record or any other Authority alledged , is an Allegation ; which was the word I vsed : the word [ meer ] was meerly his own fiction , to gain an occasion to cavill ; as the place now cited , where my words are found , will inform the Readers eyes . These straws being stept over , with which the learned Bp. thought to block up our passage ; Wee come to the point it self . Whether King H. the 8th did any more than his Ancestours . My L d of D. in his vindication ; to show hee did no more or made no new law , gathers up Instances from our former laws and reiterates them here , ( though sometimes hee uses a phrase louder than h●s proofs ) how the Pope's were curb'd or limited in their pretences . Wee answer'd , that , to limit an Authority implies an admittance of it , in cases to which the restraints extend not : Hee replies , that this ( meaning those laws ) was not meerly to limit an Authority ; but to deny it ( p. 20. l. 20. ) yet , in the next page , hee denies not equivalent laws in france , spain , Germany , Italy , and , in his ( vindication ( p. 73. l. 7. 8. &c. ) hee affirms that the like laws may bee found in Germany , Poland , france , spain , Italy , sicily , and , if wee will trust Padre Paolo , in the Papacy it self . These things being put , granted , and confest , from his own words , I shall now appeal , even to the Bp s best and bosom-friend , whether impudence was not a moderate character for that man's genius or humour , who should go about to pretend that King H. the 8th did no more in this particular , that is , renounced the Pope's Authority no more than his Ancestour Kings had done before him . For. First , this is opposite to the common notion and generall opinion of the whole world , both Catholicks , Protestants , Puritans , and of what ever sect or sort : who ever deem'd Henry the 8th to bee the first King of England who renounced the Pope's Supremacy and challenged it to himself : Nor had they ever that conciet of France , Spain , Italy , &c. in which , notwithstanding , the Bp. grants equivalent laws to the former laws of England , to which ( according to him ) K. H. superadded nothing . This particularity , I say , in K. H. the 8th all the world , as far as I ere heard , always held in their free and naturall thoughts : though , when they are put to it to defend a desperate cause , artifice wrongs nature and puts some of their non-plust Controvertists to assert and maintain the most open absurdities . Secondly , it is , in particular , against the confession and profession of his own party , the Protestants ; who sing Halleluiahs incessantly to this happy time , in which England was freed from the yoke of Rome : which is an evident argument of their pretence , that , till now , they groan'd under this yoke ; that is , that , till now , the Pope's Headship was acknowledg'd here ; and , by consequence , that K. H. the 8th did more than his Ancestours did formerly , when hee shook it of . Thirdly , this position contradicts in terms their Reformation in this point of the Pope's Supremacy , which yet rings in every man's ears and is confest by themselves : for , it is impossible and contradictory there should bee a Reformation in any thing which was not otherwise before . It was , therfore , otherwise in England before K. H. the 8th's time , notwithstanding all these former power-limiting laws alledged by the Bp. and consequently , 't is evident from the very terms , that K. H. superadded to these laws in renouncing the Pope's Authority ; and that the contrary position is most absurd , impossible and contradictory . Fourthly , it being confest by themselves , and particularly by Dr. H. ( of Schism p. 132. ) in these very words , For the matter of fact , it is acknowledg'd that , in the reign of K. H. the 8th , the Papall power in Ecclesiasticall affairs was , both by Acts of convocation of the Clergy and by statutes or Acts of Parliament , cast out of this Kingdome . This , I say , being confest ; and it being also evident in terms , that nothing can bee said to bee cast out of a place unles before it were in it : 't is likewise evident in terms , that this power was in England before , notwithstanding the former laws , cited by my L d D. then in power in this country : and , that those statutes and Acts of Parliament , made by K. H. which cast it out , did some new thing against that Authority , that is , did create new laws , and not onely declare the old . Fifthly , since , according to him , these laws made by H. the 8th did no more than the former laws , those former laws also must bee pretended to have cast out the Pope's Supremacy , and to have begun a Reformation : which yet wee never heard pretended , and hee must show us when and how this Authority of the Pope in England twinklingly went out and in again ; otherwise it could never bee said to bee cast out a fresh in K. H's reign . Sixthly , this position of his is particularly opposite , also , to the common consent of all Catholike countries , ( in which notwithstanding the Bp. affirms there are found equivalent laws ; ) who all look't on K. H. the 8th , after those Pope renouncing Acts , as a Schismatick , and on England , both then and ever since , as schismaticall . Now , that they should esteem and abhor England as schismaticall , for doing the same things themselves also did , is against common sence and impossible . Seventhly , since ( iust vindication , p. 73. l. 8. ) hee quotes Padre Paulo , that the like laws were to bee found in the Papacy it self : and 't is perfect non-sence to affirm that , in the Papacy , of which the Pope is both spirituall and temporall Governour , hee should not bee held for Head of the Church : 't is most manifest that the like laws in other places , and in particular amongst our Ancestours in England , did not take away from him that Headship in Ecclesiasticall matters ; and , by consequence , that K. H. the 8th , who deny'd him that Headship , did something new which his Ancestours had not done , and , when hee enacted this , created new law . 'T is most manifest , likewise , that those like laws in the Papacy are onely to distinguish the Pope's spirituall power , there , from his temporall , that is , to limit it's bounds , not to deny it : and , consequently , those mutually-like laws in other countries and in England formerly , did onely limit it likewise : Whence follows inevitably , that K. H's law , which totally abolish't , renounc't , and deny'd it , was of another far different strain , and new law . Eightly , this position is demonstratively convinc't of falshood , by the evidēt and acknowledg'd effect : for , who sees not that , upon this new law made by K. H. England stood at another distance from Rome than formerly ? for , formerly , notwithstanding all their laws , they held still the Pope was Head of the universall Church , reverenced him as such , held this as of faith ▪ and this till the very time of the breach : Whereas , after K. H's law , hee was held , by the party which adhered to that law , no Head of the universall Church , nor reverenc't as such ; & ( if any thing ) rather the contrary , that England was absolutely independent on him was held as of faith . Is not this as evident , as that the sun shines ; and may it not , with equall modesty , bee den'yd that there ever was such a man as K. H. the 8th ? Ninthly , this very position takes away the whole question between us , and makes both us and all the Controvertists in England on both sides talk in the aire ; wrangling , pro and con , why K. H. cast out the Pope's Authority here : whenas , ( according to this illuminated Adversary of mine ) hee had actually noe Authority there , at that time , to cast out . Lastly , this position is so thriving an absurdity , that , from non-sence and contradiction , it prosperously proceeds to perfect madnes and fanaticknes ; and comes 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 cōtradiction , 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 encroachmēts 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 Cōmunion with you enioy'd , but you must quite extirpate the inward Right it self , totally abolish and renounce the very substance of th● 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. ye●rs . Now , his book being entitled a vindication of the ●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 obliging precedent to us ? To show more the impertinency of this allegation ; I deny'd , that the Church of England hath any title from the Britannick Churches , otherwise than by the Saxon Christians ; who onely were our Ancestours , and by whose conquests and laws all that is in the Britannick world belongs and is derived to us . The Bp. replies : yes , well enough ? and , why ? first ( saith hee ) Wales and Cornwall have not onely a locall but a personall succession ; and therefore noe man can doubt of their right to the priviledges of the Britannick Churches . Grant it : what is this to our purpose ? how does this vindicate the Church of England or take of my exception ? For , let their succession bee what it will , it follows not that the body of England ( of which our Controversy is ) hath any such priviledges by descending from Cornwall or Wales . Again , 't is evident that for these many hundred years , they acknowledg'd the Pop'es Authority as much as England . And lastly , 't is a clear case , they were under those which were under the Pope . But , the wily Bp. being ask't an hard question , to wit , whether the Church of England had any title from or dependence on the Britannick Churches , answers quite another matter , and then tels us hee hath done well enough . Secondly , hee sayes , that there is the same reason for the Scots and Picts , who were no more subjected to forrain Iurisdiction than the Britans themselves . I answer none of the Picts are now extant but totally exterminated , & so no succession from them : And , as for the Scots , what doe they concern the Church of England's vindication , our purpose , or my question ; unles hee can show , which hee never pretends , that his Church of England receives title to any thing by way of the scottish Churches ? Again , since they have been submitted to the Pope , what avails it if they had any exemption anciently : for , they could never derive it to us , for want of continuation of succession ? yet as long as hee tells us hee does well enough , all is well . Thirdly ( hee should have said first , for , the two former answer are nothing to the purpose , ) hee tells us , that , among the saxons themselves , the great Kingdomes of Mercia and Northumberland were converted by the ancient Scots , and had their Religion and Ordination first from them , afterwards among themselves , without any forrain dependance ; and so were as free as the Britons . where , all the force lies in those words , [ without any forrain dependance ] which hee obtrudes upon us on his own credit onely , without a word of proof : or , if there bee any shadow of reason for it there , it must bee this , that ●hey were converted by the ancient Scots , which himself tells us , two pages after , is nothing at all to Iurisdiction . But , that which is of main importance is , that hee brings , here , no proof , that the Britons and Scots and Picts had no forrain dependance , save his own word onely : And , the trifles hee brings afterwards are of less credit than even his own words ; as will bee seen when they come to scanning . Fourthly , hee assures us , ●●at , after the Conquest , throughout the rest of England , a wo●●d of British Christians did still live mixt with the saxons . And how proves hee , this ? because otherwise the saxons had not been able to people the sixth part of the Land. I ask , did hee measure the Land , and number the saxons ? If not , how does hee know , or how can hee affirm this ? Or how does hee prove the Land must necessarily bee peopled , as fully as before , immediately after a Conquest so universall and cruell ? Our historians tell us that , to avoid their barbarous cruelty which spared none , the ancient Britains retired into Wales : yet hee would persuade us , both without and against all history , that a world stayd behind ; and this , not because the saxons stood in need of them ( as hee pretends , ) who as 't is known , brought their whole families with them ; but , indeed , because the Bp. stood in need of them , to make good his cause . But , granting the likelihood , that some few of them remain'd still in their former homes , how can the Bp. make any advantage of it ? Thus : Who can deny ( saith hee ) those poore conquer'd Christians and their Christian posterity , though mixed with saxons , the iust priviledges of their Ancestours ? A compassionate man ! who speaks a great deal of tender-hearted non-sence , rather than hee will seem unmercifull , not to the ancient Britons ( as hee pretends , ) but to his own cause ; which hee shows to bee good-naturd , at least , though it bee destitute of reason : for , unles hee can show , ) which yet never was pretended by any Protestant or man of common sence ) that those who remain'd had yet British Bishops amongst them ; or , unles hee can pretend that they remain'd not subject to the Bishops of the saxons ; it is a madnes to imagin those few lay people should inherit those former supposed priviledges : For , since , all the world grants that they ( if there were any such ) became subject to the Bishops of the saxons , which were subject to the Pope ; all pretence of their exemption from that power to which their Governours were subject is taken away : And the Bp s mercifull reason is all one , as if some few Englishmen by some accident remaining and settling in France , should pretend an exemption from the french laws both Ecclesiasticall and temporall , and to enioy the priviledges they had while they were in England , that is , while they were under another Government . But , His last reason is to the purpose and a rare one ; 't is this , that the saxon Conquest gave them as good title to the priviledges , as to the Lands of the Britons . As if hee made account , that Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction is a thing of that nature as to bee won by the sword ; or that the Saxons could plunder the Britons of their spirituall priviledges as well as of a bag of money . But , the iest is , hee would have those priviledges at once goe into Wales , with the British Bishops , and stay at home in England : not considering that Ecclesiasticall priviledges are things inherent in men , that is , in the Ecclesiasticall Governours , as enioyers or else as conservers and dispensers of them to the people ; and , in the Governed , as subiect to those Governours and laws ; not , in stones , woods and mountains , as hee fancies . Again , whereas those priviledges originally belong to Ecclesiasticall Governours and are annex't unto them as such , as they are supposed to doe in the Bp s case ; they cannot bee transmitted to posterity but by a succession into the Authority of the former Governours : wherefore , let him either show that the after Bps of the Church of England ever had succession of Authority from or were impower'd by the British Bishops ; or else let him confess that they could inherit no priviledges from them ; and , by consequence , that his pretence of it is groundles and impertinent . What is said hitherto was to show the inconsequence of deriving those priviledges from the British to ●he English Church , in case the British had any such priviledge of independency , as the Bishop contends : But , My second objection was , that this pretended exemption of the British Church was false . My reason was , because the British Bishops admitted appellation to Rome at the Council of Sardica . In answer First , hee tells mee , that , ere I can alledge the Authority of the Council of Sardica , I must renounce the divine Institution of the Papacy : and why ? for ( said hee ) that Canon submitted it to the good pleasure of the fathers , and groundeth it upon the memory of S. Peter , not the Institution of Christ . Which is , first , flat falsification of the Council : there being not a word in it either concerning the Papall power it self , or it's Institution ; but concerning Appeals onely . Next , since wee call that of divine Institution which Christ with his own mouth ordain'd ; and never any man made account or imagin'd that Christ came from heaven to speak to the after Pope's , and so give them a Primacy ; but ▪ that hee gave it by his own mouth to S. Peter , whiles hee lived here on earth : This , I say , being evidently our tenet ; and the Council never touching this point at all ; what a weaknes is it to argue thence against the diuine Institution of the Papacy , and to abuse the Council , saying , that it submitted this to the good pleasures of the fathers ? Secondly , hee asks , how does it appear that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon ? which a little after hee calls my presumption : And truly , I shall ever think it a most iust presumption , that they , who confessedly sate in the Council , assented to what was ordain'd by the Council in which they sate ( as was their duty ) unles some objection bee alledged to the contrary ; as the Bp brings none . Thirdly , hee sayes the Council of sardica was no generall Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed ; as they were before the making of that Canon . What means hee by the Eastern Bishops ? the Catholicks , or the Arians ? The Arian Bishops indeed fled away , fearing the judgment of the Church , as Apol. 2. & ep . ad solitarios S. Athanasius witnesses : but how shows hee that any of the 76. Eastern Bishops , were gone , ere this Canon , ( which is the third in that Council ) was made ? So that , my L d of Derry is willing to maintain his cause , by clinging to the Arians against S. Athanasius and the then Catholike Church ( as hee does also in his foregoing Treatise , p. 190. 191 ) denying , with them , this to have been a generall Council , because his good Brother Arians had run away from it , fearing their own just cōdēmnation . Fourthly , hee says the Canons of this Council were never received in England or incorporated into the English laws . I ask , has hee read the British laws in those times ? if not , for any thing hee knows , they were incorporated into them ; and so , according to his former Grounds , must descend down to the English. But , wee are mistaken in him : his meaning is onely that the aduantages and priuiledges should bee inherited from the Britons , not their disadvantages or subjection : So sincere a man hee is to his cause , though partiall to common sence . Lastly ( saith hee ) this Canon is contradicted by the great generall Council of Chalcedon , which our Church receiveth . Yet it seems hee neitheir thought the words worth citing , nor the Canon where the abrogation of the Sardica Canon is found worth mentioning : which argues , it is neither worth answering nor looking for I am confident hee will not find any repealing of the Sardica Canon exprest there : It must therefore bee his own deduction , on which hee relies ; which , till hee puts it down , cannot bee answerd . As for their Church receiving the Council of Chalcedon ; the Council may thanke their ill will to the Pope , not their good will to receive Councils : For any Council , in which they can find any line to blunder in mistakingly against him , they receive with open arms ; But , those Councils which are clear and express for him , though much ancienter ( as this of Sardica was ) shall bee sure to bee rejected and held of no Authority ; and , when a better excuse wants , the very running away of the guilty Arians shall disannul the Council and depriue it of all it's Authority . Hee subjoyns , there appears not the least footstep of any Papall Iurisdiction exercised in England by Elentherius : ( I answer nor any certain footstep of any thing else in those obscure times : ) but the contrary : for , hee referd the legislative part to King Lucius , and the British Bishops . Here you see my Ld D. positive and absolute : But , look into his Vindication , p. 105. and you shall see what Authority hee relies on for this positive confidence ; viz. the Epistle of Eleutherius ; which , himself , conscious it was nothing worth and candid to acknowledge it there , graces with a parenthesis , in these words ( If that Epistle bee not counterfeit : ) But , now wee have lost the candid conditionall [ If , ] and are grown absolute . Whence wee see , that the Bp. according as hee is put to it more and more to maintain his cause , is forced still to ab●te some degree of his former little sincerity : And thus , this if-not counter feited testimony is become one of his demonstrations , to clear himself and his Church from Schism . Now , though our faith relies on immediate Traditiō for it's onely and certain Rule , and not upon fragments of old Authours : yet , to give some instances of the Pope's Iurisdiction anciently in England , I alledged S. Prosper , that Pope Celestin [ Vice sua ] in his own stead sent S German to free the Britons from Pelagianism , and converted the scots by Palladius . My L d answers , that converting and ordaining , &c. are not acts of Iurisdiction : yet himself sayes here , p. 193. that all other right of Iurisdiction doth follow the right of ordination . Now what these words [ all other ] mean is evident by the words immediately foregoing , to wit , all other besides Ordination and Election ; by which 't is plain hee makes these two to bee rights of Iurisdiction . So necessary an attendant to errour is self contradiction and non-sence . But the point is , hee leaues out those words I relied on [ Vice sua , in his own stead , ] which show'd , that it belong'd to his office to do it . These words omitted , hee tells us , that hee hath little reason to beleeve either the one , or the other : that is , hee refuses to beleeve S. Prosper a famous and learned father , who lived neer about the same time and was conversant with the affairs of the Pelagians ; and chuses to relie rather on an old obscure Authour , whence no prudent man can Ground a certainty of any thing , and which , if hee would speak out , himself would say hee thought to bee counterfeit . What follows in his 25. page is onely his own sayings ? His folly in grounding the Pope's Supremacy on Phocas his liberality hath been particularly answer'd by mee heretofore , Par● . 1. Sect. 6. whether I refer him . I found fault with him for leaving the Papall power and spending his time in impugning the Patriarchal● : And , I concieve it stands with very good reason to reprehend mine Adversary , and call him back , when hee runs away from the whole question . First , hee observes how readily wee decline all manner of discourse concerning the Pope's Patriarchall power . When 't is not the question , wee do ; as any man , who understands what it is to dispute , would : But , does hee ever find that wee decline it when 't is the question ? I suppose , by this time , my largenes in handling it in this foregoing treatise , Part. 1. Sect. 15. hath corrected his wrong apprehension in that point . Next , hee is puzzled to know the reason of this , but hee may well conjecture ( hee sayes , ) that 't is because wee find that our spirituall Monar●hy , and a Patriarchall dignity are inconsistent in the same subject . What insuperable difficulties the Bp's sooth-saying fancy proposes ? As if it were soe hard a matter for Bp. Vscher to have beenat once Bp. of Armagch , and yet Primate too of Ireland ; and , as such , my Lord of Derry's Superiour : what greater difficulty hee imagins , that a Primate and an higher , ( that is , a Papall ) power should joyn in one person , than there is that a Primacy , that is , the highest in that continent , should bee thus linkt with an inferiour dignity in the same continent , needs a revelation from the fancy that first dream't it . Lastly , hee s is shrewdly peremptory , and shuts up thus , And yet , a Patriarch the Pope was , and so always acknowledg'd to bee , and they cannot deny it . Is not this a pleasant man to wanton it thus with a needles cruelty ; who puts us upon the rack , and will make us by force confess a truth , which himself knows every Catholike in the world ever granted , held , and maintain'd ? And , what weak-iudging Reader , seeing such confident expressions , would not remain astonisht at it and admire the Bp. for a most terrible disputant ; who over bears his Adversary with such an unresistable career of Authority , and all to beats with such mighty stroaks the hissing aire ? Amongst other proofs of the British liberties , ( as the BP . tells us here , ) hee produced the answer of Dinoth to Austin ; which hee deems soe choyce and rare a proof that hee reiterates it , and with new vigour insists on it here : gleaning those exceptions hee thought the easiest , from this treatise , my former against Dr. H. and partly from the Appendix to the Manuall of Controversy . My first exception , in this place , was , that the word Pope was not then used alone to signify the Bp. of Rome : Hee quotes Bellarmin against mee , and ( so wise a man hee is ) expects that Catholike Writers shall bee of the same mind in all things , even in controvertible and indifferent point , that is , hee makes account there are neither Catholick Schools , nor that any difficulties occur in Historians ; nor , to come neerer the point , that Catholikes should disagree even so much as in a Criticism about a word , as this is . As for the instance from the Council of Chalcedon , Beatissimus & Apostolicus vir Papa , hoc nobis praecepit , I answer that , though there bee neither Vrbis Romae or any such like expression immediately conjoyn'd to the word Papa , yet , which is equivalent , the comitant circumstances sufficiently de●ermin'd and indigitated the person ; nay , although the word Papa had been totally omitted , yet the person had been perfectly known : for , these words are down in the Council as spoken by Boniface , sedis Apostolicae vicarius , the Pope's vice gerent , in answer to a demand of the Council what orders hee had received from Pope Leo. So far then is the word Papa in that place from being emphaticall or expressive of the BP . of Rome , taken singly and alone ; that it was rather , rigorously speaking , a needles word as found in that place . My second exception against their being called Bishops of Caerleon , after the remouall of the seat to S. Davids , was not put by mee in this place nor urged against him at all , but against Dr. H. But , conceptum sermonem retinere quis potest ? though it concern'd not his Province hee must still needs bee doing . Hee had found by chance an odd testimony , ( the best Minerva of a word stuff't brain ; ) and hee was with child till hee had brought it to light . Nor hath hee yet any thing to take of my exception , besides one testimony of an historian , ( for Sr Henry's is either built on the welsh paper or on this same Authour's words : ) and , on the other side , himself must confess , that it is a passage unparallell'd in history , perhaps ever since the beginning of the world , that a seat should bee translated from one place to another , as this was from Caerleon to Menevia ; and yet retain the title of the seat whence it was translated ; and this during the successive Government of five and twenty Bishops , as this testimony sayes . Again , had the name Caerleon been translated likewise to Menevia , that is , had Menevia changed it's name into Caerleon , it had been more likely ; or , had Caerleon's Arch Bishops , onely for some conveniency , resided at Menevia , and the right of Iurisdiction belonged still to Caerleon , it might more easily bee conceived feisible : but , that the seat it self should bee translated , and Menevia bee made the lawfull Metropolis , and yet not own her self for such , but let a cashier'd place so long keep the title due in right to her , is highly improbable . But , the maine is , that it is most evident in history , the Bp's of S. Davids or Menevia were called Menevenses , ( as himself cannot but know , is frequent in history ; ) and so styled by their good friend , Dr. H. in his Appendix , p. 176. by Ranulphus Cestrensis , l. 1. c. 52. by Daniel Powell , a Protestant , who set forth Giraldus ( the BP's Authour , ) in his marginall notes on Itinerarium Cambriae , ● . 1. c. 1. and lastly by Dinoth himself , the title of whose book ( cited by Pi●seus ) is Defensorium Iurisdictions sedis Menevensis : I conceive all these Testimonies will easily outweigh the BP's single one : which yet is all that secures it from being contradictory to cōfest history ; & so , 't is uterly undeserving any credit . Add , that , grant the name of Caerleon had been retain'd by them , so that the Bishops of menevia were call'd Bishops of Caerleon ; yet they could not but very unhandsomely bee , called BP's of Caerleon upon Vske . This particular exactnes then in this expressing the locality of his Bishoprick , which is found in the Abbot's words , argue that the counterfeiter of this paper imagin'd this Bishop still to have resided neere Vske at Caerleon , after the locall translation of the seat thence ; and so , still it remains an argument of it's imposture . My third exception , as hee calls it , is such that the Bp. cannot , hee confesses , find the edge of it . Perhaps the bluntnes lies in his apprehension , not in my exception . Let us see . I objected , that S. H. spilman found no other Antiquity in that Welsh manuscript worth the mentioning ; and , that this shrewdly imply'd , it was made for this alone . Hee asks how I know S r H. found no other Antiquities in it ? and alledges , that there might bee many more , and yet not proper for a Collection of Ecclesiasticall Councils . Pray does S r H. neglect all passages which are not of this grave nature ? How came hee then to take notice of this toy ? was this single Abbot either pretended to bee a Council , or these words of his some authentick act of a Council ? I conceive you will not conclude it was ; otherwise Dr H. would not have undervalued it as inconsiderable , and a proof you could unconcernedly and easily partwith as he does in his Appēdix , p 168. How then was it so proper for à Collection of Ecclesiasticall Councils ? whereas the Collection might have been entire and perfect , though this had been omitted . Since then Sr H. who adored any new reuived piece of Antiquity , found nothing in this manuscript worth mentioning but this ; in all likelihood it was made for this onely . Secondly , hee replies , in case there had been no other Antiquity in it , would S. W. condemn his creed for a counterfeit , because it is not huddled together confusedly with some other Treatise in one Volume . No ; my Ld : my creed is sufficiently authoriz'd to my hand , nor hath any iust exceptions against it : This poor manuscript hath nothing at all to assert it's Authority , and lies under many and very suspicious Exceptions . But , in case one , who holds not his creed , should bee dealt with to beleeve it onely upon these Grounds , that it was found in a certain manuscript newly brought to light by one who holds the same creed ; and this manuscript not authoriz'd by any testimony asserting it to have been writ by the Apostles , but onely that it might bee it was ; and against this very might bee many exceptions brought , and amongst the rest , that the style was very new and modern , and so unlikely to have been the Apostles own words ; again , in case this manuscript , whence onely this creed is pretended to bee evinced , had nothing in it worth note but this very creed : that man were very weak and foolish , to beleeve his creed thus slenderly proposed or rather totally unauthoriz'd ; nor can they bee iudg'd less weak who can think such a manuscript , absolutely unauthentick and manifoldy excepted against , a fitt Ground to build their assent upon to clear themselves from Schism , that is , to secure themselves from , otherwise , due damnation , as themselves confess . Will hee have mee reckon up again the exceptions against it ? To omit then what hath been sayd here , First , it is onely Sr H's coniecture , that M. Moston's manuscript was transcribed out of an ancienter Copy : now , if this meer conjecture happen to fail , the wise busines is at an end . Secondly Sr H. who brought it to light , confesses , hee knows not when and by whom that manuscript was composed : which is as much as to say , it hath nothing to authorize it . Thirdly , 't is onely Sr H's conjecture , that those words were the answer of Dinoth to S. Austin upon that occasion . 4ly the same conjecture is all the Ground that the famous Dinoth was that Abbot . 5ly the English found , in an interlineary manner with the Welsh , in that manuscript , is evidently modern and later than K. H. the 8th : which altogether disgraces the pretended Antiquity of that manuscript , and Grounds a iust presumption of it's being forged to countenance his or his successours renouncing the Pope's Authority . 6ly the learned in Welsh affirm , that both the welsh language is modern , and the spelling it is unlike to the ancient manner ; and doth manifestly and particularly resemble externs smattering , when they first learn or write that language . Diuers instances of which are found in few lines , which evidences a forgery . 7ly , the Protestants are challenged to have abus'd it in the translation ; and yet ( so brave a proof it is ) they are glad to add paraphrases to make sence of it . 8ly , it is not past seventeen or eighteen years , since this new piece of Antiquity came to light . All which and much more to the same purpose may bee seen in the Appendix to the Manuall of Controuersies . 9ly , considering the foresayd exceptions ; as also that an English line is put alwayes word by word under each welsh line , ( a method unheard of in Antiquity ) as our Ianua linguarum or the Praxis at the end of Clenard's Greek Grammar uses to bee ; it was in all likelihood invented ( after the form of our ●ueriles , or Ianua linguarum ) by some Minister , who was a Schoolmaster , to teach the welsh School boy's English , and withall to instill into them a dislike of the Pope : the chief and most necessary point of their Cathecism in those days ; when all art was used to pervert the minds of the welsh and English , and to blot out and disgrace , ( as much as in them lay ) whatever concern'd the Catholike Church or it's Government . 10ly , in case all these exceptions were waved , still the book is of no Authority in the world : for , there is no difficulty , but a craf●y fellow may counterfeit a passage , & pretend it to have been found in Antiquity , which may cohere so handsomly together , that no great flaw can bee found in it , nor grounded exceptiō taken against it ; yet , it follows not hence that this piece of handsome forgery must therefore bee rely'd on as authentick , unles hee can produce sufficient Grounds to authorize it : viz. prove from Antiquity that such a person was held to bee the Authour of it ; & that this pretended saying of this Authour , or the book which recommended it , was acknowledg'd by the common consent of good and learned men ( which is that which gives Authority to all books ) to have come down not corrupted , ( at least in that passage ) to our times . Vnles these bee shown , still such a book , however it tells it's tale handsomly , fall● short of having any Authority ; since it wants all things which can Ground Authority . See then Reader , what weak men wee have to dispute with ; who think the deed done and that they may iustly obtrude upon the easy credulity of the world any pretended scrap of Antiquity ; so they can solve exceptions against it , ( which yet they will never doe ) though they bring not nor even goe about to bring the least proof to gain it Authority , but totally neglect that necessary task ; nay more , confess themselves to seek in those points , as wee have seen lately , and as Mr Fuller tacitly grants by waving to patronize it ; who ( in his Church History , Cent. 7. part . 3. ) going about to rehearse this wise testimony , bid it in plain terms Shift as well as it could for it's own authenticalnes . In a word , the busines comes to this , that , had there been some welsh pamphlet or ballad , made in Ed. the 6th's dayes against the Pope , found in some Library in manuscript , printed & put forth by some Protestant Authour , and supposed by the partiall Antiquary , without the least proof , extracted out of ancienter copies , presently there needs no more to authorize it , soe it bee but against the Pope : that Ballad shall bee confidently asserted to have been sung by the old British Bards , and to have signify'd the sence of the British Churches in those days And thus , Protestant Reader , thou seest what demonstrations thy BP's and Dr's bring thee , to secure thy Soul from the horrid sin of Schism ; which yet ( Dr. H. of Schism , c. 1. ) they tell thee is greater than Idolatry . Lastly ▪ put case all had been true , yet what had they concluded ; unles they had proved likewise that this Abbot , in saying so , had spoken the mind of the then Catholike world ? for , no man that hath any sence in his head will undertake to defend , that , in the space of fifteen or sixteen hundred years , there cannot bee found some few who , either out of disgust , ambition , interest or ignorance , might speak or act against the Pope's Authority or against the most inuiolable right that can be imagined , but 't is clearly sufficient to maintain that in so saying , they pronounced not the sence of the then Catholike world . Have there been heresies , against almost all other points of faith arisen in severall ages ; and shall wee imagin noe possibility of opposition against that point which concerns Government ? Or , will it bee deem'd by any indifferent man a competent proof against true faith , to say , that such and such hereticks deny'd it ? No more ought it to bee held sufficient , that such or such persons now and then deny'd that point which concerns Government ; unles such a deniall can Ground an inference that God's Church in that age held otherwise . If then the Bp. will , first , clear his welsh copy book of all the exceptions brought against it ; next , assert and establish it's Authority ; and lastly , evince that this Abbot , in thus saying , spoke the thoughts of the world at that time ; hee will conclude strongly against us : and , till hee does this hee does nothing ; For , onely the beleef of a Church , relying on immediate Tradition , pretended and evinced , can bee possibly held able to counterpoise the tenet of a Church which confessedly relies on immediate Tradition possest . As for what the Bp. addes concerning his corroboratory proof from the British Synods , I must confess indeed that corroboratory is a very thumping and robust word ; but what does it corroborate ? Does it prove that the Authour of this welsh manuscript was worth a straw ? Not a iot . The chief strentgh of this corrobototy proof lies in this , that all the British Clergy did , in those Synods , renounce all obedience to the see of Rome : as hee tells us here , p. 29. and urges mee to answer it . I shall ; and reply , that 't is an arrant falsification at once of all Historians : for , if hee means that they onely disobey'd the Pope , in not conforming themselves to his commands , I grant 't is clear in all history they did so ; and so have many , who remain Catholikes , done , who yet own the Pope's Authority it self : but , if it signifies , as his circumstances and words make it , that they renounced the Pope's Authority and deny'd his power to command or Supremacy , 't , is absolutely false ; no such thing being debated or deny●d in those Synods . Yet , to corroborate this , this Bp. tells us , ( in his iust vindication p. 104. ) That Austin , S. Gregory's Legate , proposed three things to them ; first , that they should submit to the Roman Bishop : 2ly that they should conform to the Roman customes about the obseruation of Easter , and administration of Baptism ; and Lastly , that they should ioyn with him in preaching to the saxons . All which are pretēded to bee deny'd in those Synods . Whereas , again , the first pretended proposall of S. Austin's is a very flat falsification of the Bp's ; no such thing being there proposed : The three proposalls were concerning Easter , Baptism and preaching to the English , as your friend , Dr. H. ( who happen'd here to bee more ingenuous ) tells you expresly out of Bede ( Appendix p. 181. l. 8. 9. ) Yet the Bp. cites there for this proposall and deniall , Beda & omnes alij , in the margent ; that is , at once belies Bede and all our Historians : and , to compleat the iest ( in his vindication , p. 104. l. 1. 2. ) hee brags that this would strike the question dead And truly soe it hath : for , whereas the question before depended most upon the Bp's own words , and partly on his sinc●rity ; nothing is more questionles now than this , that hee is a most unquestionable falsifier . Now , to falsify , wee are told , signifies to corroborate , that Protestant cause ; and so is no shame , but a beautifull stain and an honorable scar . Again , hee assures us here from his corroboratory proof , that all the British Cler●y , did r●nounce all obedience to the Bp of Rome , of which all our Historiographers do bear witnes . You see by his many [ All 's ] what care hee hath of sincerity . Whereas the Right of their subjection never came into play , much less did they profess a renouncing all obedience , but onely in not conforming to the customes of another Church . Nor shall hee find one Historiographer who affirms that they deny'd all subjection due , or disacknowledg'd the Pope's Headship ( though in some things they disobey'd him ) except his welsh paper , and those of his own side who presume it upon their own conjecture . And to confute his [ All ] Pitseus tells us onely , that neque in maiori tonsurâ , neque in ritu baptismatis , neque in celebratione Paschatis se Romanae Ecclesiae ullâ ratione conformare voluerunt . Which shows that there was no talk there of the Pope's Authority , but of conforming to rites and customes . Yet this the corroborating Bp. there calls an evident demonstration , that I but trifle vainly against the testimony of Dionothus . But , in case this British Clergy which made these laws had renounced the Pope's Authority : Let us see what cause hee had to brag of them . S. Bede , l. 2. c. 2. calls them unfaithfull , naughty and detestable people . Their own Country man , Gildas , sayes they were wolues , enemies of truth , and friends to lies , enemies of God , and not Priests , marchants of mischief and not Bp's , impugners of Christ and not his Ministers , more worthy to bee drawn to Prison , than to Preisthood . And the Bp's dear friend , Iohn Fox , tell us , out of an old Chronicle , ( Acts l. 2. p. 114. ) that all things , whether they pleased or displeased Cod , they regarded alike ; & , not onely secular men did this , but their Bishops and Teachers without distinction . Thus my Ld D. hath again corroborated the Protestant cause by crying Hail Brethren well met , to those folks who have been proved to bee detestable fellows and enemies of God , that is , as good as Atheists : of which gang if this Dinoth were one , wee shall neither wish the Pope such friends , nor enuy them to the Protestants . And this may serue for another of the Bp's demonstrations against the Pope , to vindicate his Church from Schism , and secure his Readers from damnation , ( which hee acknowledges due to that vice ; ) by their relying on such proofs , and adhering to such good company . I am not ignorant that there is a thing , call'd an Answer or account to H. T 's Appendix , which confuted this forged manuscript , writ by Dr. H though I briefly hinted here some exceptions found in it , without taking notice of their pretended answer ; partly , because I know by long experience , that nothing but shuffling impertinences ▪ paralogisms , and falsifications are to bee expected from that Authour ; and principally because I understood that the sayd Appendix is patroniz'd by the same learned pen that writ it ; and those Exceptions shown untouch't by the mock shirmish of his Adversary . Thither I refer the Reader for compleat satisfaction where hee will see my BP . more fully confuted , and my present charge against the sleight Accountant , most amply made good . Sect. 5. How my Ld of Derry digresses from a Papall Authority to a Patriarchall ; that is from t ? who le question . His prafest resolution not to return to it but upon conditions , and such as hee is sure no Catholike can yeeld to . His waving the whole scope of his Adversary's Discourse : together with diverse impertinent , non sencicall and unskilfull Replies . MY Lord of Derry undertook to prove three things in his 6th Chapter : first , that the King & Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdraw their obedience from the Roman Patriarch . 2 ly , that they had iust Grounds to do it ; and 3 ly , that they did it with due moderation . I objected , that this was to shuffle away the whole question . For , whereas the question is of the Priviledge given by Christ to S. Peter , and from him descended to the Pope's his successours ; that is , whereas our Controversy is about a Papall Authority , or that of the Head of God's Church , held by us and by themselves formerly to bee of faith , and of divine Institution ; hee leaves this to talk of a Patriarchall Authority , not held as from Christ , but of humane Institution . By which sleight hee tacitly intimates that the Authority actually in force in England at the time of the Reformation , and then renounced , was onely Patriarchall , not Papall : which waves the main , if not the whole charge , and is plainly contradictory to the whole world's eyes at that time . Now , what excuse brings the Bishop for this fundamentall shuffling , importing no less than the avoiding the whole question ? Hee tells us here p. 30. that when hee first undertook this subject hee cōceived the great strength of the Roman sampson did lie in his Patriarchate . By which words if the Bp. pretends that hee intended to express himself finely , I shall grant it , but if hee sayes that hee intended to speak truly , I have so good an opinion of those of his own party , that I am confident the most partiall and simplest of them will bee too candid and too wise to beleeve him . For , how can it bee imagin'd that a Bp. and so well read a man as hee is accounted to bee should bee ignorant that the Reformers renounc't a Papall Authority and higher than Patriarchall , and that a Papall Authority , that is a Supremacy over the whole Church in Ecclesiasticall matters , was held immediately before the Reformation or rejection of it . Who knows not likewise that they stand accused by us of the fact of renouncing an Authority far higher than Patriarchall ? yet this Bp. undertaking that subject ( that is to vindicate his Church from Schism in renouncing that higher Authority ) pretends hee conceived that the great strength of the Roman sampson lay in his Patriarchate ; though hee knows the Patriarchate was held but of human , that Papacy of divine Institution ; the Patriarchate limited to some particular part within God's Church , the Papacy , ( which they actually renounced ) held to bee universally extended and to have no other bounds or limits but God's Church ; the Papacy superior , nay supreme ; the Patriarchate inferior and subordinate to the former . This is the notion which both the former and present world nay themselves too had of the Papacy , at least ere they rejected it ; which a man would think supperadds a great and manifold increase of strength above the other . But the sincere Bp. thinks otherwise now , though in his former book hee confesses the Pope had quitted the Patriarchall power , that is , pretended none for these last 600. years , and here enlargeth it to a 1000. Which shows that Dr. H. and hee are the Simeon and Levy of the Protestant fraternity , and have the same fundamentall faults common to both . But now being taken tardy , and caught running away from the question , hee is well contented ( hee sayes ) to give over that subject , ( to wit his disgression to the Patriarchate ) but yet , not but upon two conditions ; wise ones you may bee sure . Observe by the way , Reader , that though other disputants make account it is their duty and absolute obligation to speak to the point in hand ; in the Bp. 't is a courtesy and to bee condescended to conditionally , 't is against his nature and inclination to hold to the question , and therefore wee must bribe him to it 〈◊〉 s●bscribing to the bargain hee proposes . The first condition hee requires ere hee will leave of rambling to a Patriarchate , and come home to the question , is , that wee must not presume the Pope is a spirituall Monarch without proving it . What hee means by spirituall Monarch I know not ; 'T is a word without sence till it bee explicated : For , either hee means by Monarch a Commander in whose breast all concernments of the subjects are put , so that his will is a law to dispose of them as hee lists ; and then wee held not the Pope to bee such a Monarch ; for this , however it bee call'd Monarch , is indeed flat Tyranny : or else , hee means a Monarch is the ordinary chief Governour , and such wee hold the Pope to bee in the Church , and shall ever presume hee is so , till his subjects who actually rebell'd against his Authority disprove it . Wee hold on the Governours side ; your first Reformers were , before their separation , actually his subjects ; actually they deny'd their subjection , and rose against his Government : ' This actuall rising against him , this very fact , I say , proves you Rebells ; his former long-enjoy'd possession stands a proof of his Right unles you evidence and demonstrate him an vsurper ; or , though none , yet that the Government ought to bee abolish't . But the Bp. will not hold to the question , unles wee will grant that when a subject rises against a former long possest Governour , hee shall at pleasure call the Governour to account , and oblige him to prove his title ere hee will acknowledge him ; and , on the other side , that the subject must bee freed from all obligation to give account of his rising against his Governour , or from being bound to prove that the Authority hee rebell'd against was an usurpation and unjust . Good sence , but hard law ! His second condition ere hee will come to the question is , that wee must not attempt to make Patriarchall priviledges to bee Royall Prerogatives , what hee means by Royal Prerogatives , I know not , there being no determinate certainty what Royalty is ; the notion varying according to diuerse countries . But , hee understands perhaps that a Patriarch shall not bee independēt of the King in Ecclesiasticall affairs within his own Patriarchate , and that this is the King's priviledge ; to which condition hee knows no Catholike will ever yeeld any more than to the former ; otherwise wee must grant that S. Peter could not preach at Rome , if Nero were a King ; not S. Iames at Hiernsalem without unkinging Herod . Yet the Bp. will bee even with mee ; for , as I will not condescend to his conditions , so , on the other side , hee neither hath heretofore , nor ever will hereafter bee brought to hold to the question or speak directly to the point ; as hath been seen hitherto all along , and shall more particularly bee seen hereafter . Nor will hee long defer his revenge , but puts it in execution the very next thing hee does ; being assured to have demanded such conditions , as should never bee granted ; for , Whereas hee had remou'd the question from a Papall Authority , held of divine , to a Patriarchall acknowledg'd but of human Institution ; not to desert our question totally , and to give him fair law , I put the case that the Papall Government had been onely of human Institution , it ought not to have been rejected unles the abuses had been irremediable . I urged that considering , this Head was chosen , in that case , to preserve Vnity in Religion , and that eternall dissentions would inevitably follow upon it's rejection , and a separation of the rejecters from the rest of that common-wealth which acknowledg'd that Head , therefore far weightier causes must bee expected , or greater abuses committed , ere , not onely the person , but this very Government should bee abolish't . Now the matter of fact being evident , and confest that the first Reformers consented with all the Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome in their submitting to that Authority , till they began to reject it ; that they acknowledg'd it lawfull , ere they began to disclame it as unlawfull ; that they held none at that time true Christians but those who agreed , consented and submitted to that Authority ; that the acknowledging this Head then was , ( as it still is to us ) the Principle of Vnity in Government for all Christianity , & as such then held by them : Likewise , it being equally evident & confest that they have now actually renounced that Authority thus held , acknowledg'd , and submitted to by all , whom they then deemed Christians , as the Rule and Ground of all Vnity in that commonwealth : These things , I say , being so , I had good reason to put that supposition , not as our bare tenet , ( as the Bp. seems to imagin ) but as the evident matter of fact , as the case stood then . One would think it were the Bp's task now to show that , notwithstanding all this , the first Abolishers of this Authority had sufficient reasons to disannull it ; and that the abuses of the sayd Authority did outweigh the right use of it , so that it might and ought have been rejected by one part of that Christianity , though once establisht ; or , ( which is all one ) long accepted by their common consent , as this was de facto . What does the Bp. ? Hee tells us what hee and the Protestants now held concerning that point , putting ( as it were ) his counter tenet to ours , sayes the Pope is onely as a Proclocutor in a Generall Assembly , was their steward , that is , not their Governour , ( all contrary to the matter of fact which my case is built on ) that they nourish a more Catholik-Communion than wee , and such other stuff all out of his own head , without a word of proof , & then thinks the deed is done . Was ever such an Answer contriu'd ? the poak-full of plums was pertinent , if compar'd to ' this . But still the Bishop is innocent ; t was my fault , who would not accept of the two conditions hee proposed which should have been the guerdon of his returning to the question ; that is , without the performance of which hee thinks himself not bound to speak a word to the purpose ; And so the Reader must look upon him hereafter as on a man who hath got or took licence to run astray . Observe , Reader , in what a different manner the Bp. & I treat thee . I still bring thee to evident and acknowledg'd matter of fact , or such suppositions which need onely application , and another name to bee so , according as the case stood at the time of the first breach ; Whereas , the Bp. brings thee his own sayings , their party's tenet for Grounds and proofs : things not acknowledg'd , but disputable , nay disputed in this present debate ; that is , obscure , as far as concerns this question . And this is his solemn manner all over this treatise ; which shows that hee hates the light , his unfriendly betrayer , but truth's Glory ; and , that the obscurity of ambiguities is most proper and least offensive to his errour-darkned eyes . I demanded of him whether hee would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy , and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes , or abuses of Prelates . Hee answers that never such abuses as these were objected either to Princes or Prelates in England . Not objected ? that 's strange ! Read the Court of K. Iames , and the charge against King Charles in Westminster Hall. Did not the Scots and Puritans object Popery , intolerable pride , and overburthening weak consciences to your Brother Bp's . Can there bee greater abuses objected than these in your Grounds ? or is not the design to bring in Popery ( which makes such a noise in your book , as a Pandera's box of all mischiefs and inconveniences ) as horrid an accusation against you , as the same inconveniences were against Popery when it stood on foot in K. H's daies . I was told by a worthy grave person and whose candour I have no reason to suspect , that in a priuate discourse hee had with the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in his own garden concerning the point of Schism , the Arch-Bishop confest , upon his urging the evident matter of fact , that hee was in a Schism ; upon which free confession of his , being prest again by that Gentleman how hee could in conscience remain in a Schism and separated from God's Church , hee reply'd that it might lawfully bee done if warranted by an intention to reunite by such compliance a schismatizing Congregation to the Body it broke from : citing to make good his plea , a place from S. Austin , in reference to some Catholike Bishops complying with the Donatists for the same end . Now , I ask , whether in case the Arch-Bishop had endeavoured to bring in Popery , Episcopacy ( held to bee of divine right ) ought therefore to bee abolisht ? If bee answer ; No , ( as I suppose his interest will prevail above his Grounds to make him ) then I ask again why an inferiour actuall power , to wit , Episcopacy , should not bee held to merit abolishing for Popery's sake ; and introducing it so fraught with inconveniences , which Popery , ( so full alas ! of grievances ) though held immediately before equally of divine Institution , and of far higher Authority , deserved to bee abolish't for it's own sake , as accompany'd with the sayd grievances ! Secondly , the Bp. tells us that they seek not extirpation of the Papacy , but the reducing it to the primitive constitution : which is as good sence , as to give a manabox on the ear , and then tell him you intend not to strike him . They have already totally extirpated it in England , in such sort as all the world sees and acknowledges the Pope hath not the least influence upon the English Congregation , over which before hee had the greatest ; yet , they hope to bee taken for moderate men , as long as they speak courteous non-sence and tell us , they seek not to extirpate it . Thus the Bp. wanders from the purpose ; but still all is my fault who would not grant him his two conditions . Thirdly , hee tells us that Monarchy and Episcopacy are of divine Institution , so is not , ( saith hee ) a Papall soueraignty of Iurisdiction . That Monarchy should bee of divine Institution , I much wonder , surely the Venetians and Hollanders are in a sad case then , who thus continue without relenting to break one of God's Commandments ; especially , their Brethren , the Hollanders , who renounced the Monarchicall Government of the King of Spain . But the learned Bp. hath some text or other in Scripture which hee interprets onely according to Grammar and Dictionary-learning without ever looking into Politicks , the science which concerns such points & passages ; which would have taught him that Government was instituted for the good of the Governed ; and , that , since human affairs are subject to perpetuall mutability and change , it happens that in some countries and some circumstances one form of Government is convenient , in others another , according as it happens to bee best for the Governed : which comes to this that no particular form of Government is of divine Institution , and constituted to endure ever , seing the end to which all Government is directed , the good of the Governed , is mutable and changeable . As for the next part of his third excuse that the Pope's Authority or Headship in Iurisdiction is not of divine Institution , as Episcopacy is ; you see 't is his old trick ; onely his own bare saying , and which is worse , saying over again the very point in dispute between us . Whereas , the point which wee urge here is a plain matter of fact , that those who first renounc't the Papall Authority , held immediately before they renounc't it as firmly that it was divine Institution , as the Protestants do of Episcopacy now ; and therefore ought to have renounc't it , upon the pretended pressure of inconveniencies , no more than Episcopacy ought to bee abolish't upon the like inconveniences . Nay more , the first Reformers ere they grew newfangled and chang'd their mind , held it much more firmly ; for they held it a point of faith , and abhorr'd all them who renounc't it as Schismaticks and Hereticks both ; whereas the Protestants acknowledge the Huguenots of France for Brothers , who yet deny Episcopacy , which the Bp. tells us upon another occasion is of divine Institution . But , 't is all one with the Protestants whether they renounce all Christ's Institutions or no ; if they do but hate Rome ; they are saints and Brothers . The common faction against the Pope is more powerfull to unite them , than the professed and obstinate rejecting Christ's ordinances , is to disunite them . As for his Bravado how rarely hee could iustify his Parliamentary Prelacy , what weak performances it would afford were it put to triall , may bee judged from his numerous and enormous contradictions in this present treatise , bragg'd on by the Protestants to bee his Master peece . Sect. 6. How my L● of Derry states the whole question false , by pretending , against the plain matter of fact , that they separated onely from the Court , and not from the Church of Rome . His Grounds of separation shown insufficient in many regards ; nay confest such by himself , granting there was another remedy besides division . That the Reformers have neither left any open and certain method of coming to Christ's faith , nor any form of Government in God's Church , nor by consequence any Church . His weak plea for England's independency from the Council of Ephesus . Five palpable contradictions cluster'd together , which the Bp. calls the Protestants more Experience than their Ancestors . HIs sixth section pretends to vindicate his Grounds of separation ; to take notice of which the Bp. is violently importunate with the Reader bidding him observe and wonder . Nor can I doe any less , seeing such monstrous stuff throughout this whole Section . It begins , we are now come to the Grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome . And this is the first Monster , which the Bp's pen more fruitfull of such creatures , than Africk it self , proposes to our observation . Which , if it bee not as foul and uncouth an one as errour could hatch , and obstinate Schism maintain , you shall pay but pence a peece to see it , and say I have abus'd you too . The charge against the Protestants was this , manifested by undeniable matter of fact ; that they had rejected the acknowledgment of S. Peters , and his successours , ( the Pope's ) Headhip over God's Church ; and that they had receded from this Rule of faith , that nothing is to bee adhered to , as of faith , but what was inherited , ( that is immediately delivered ) by their forefathers , as the doctrine of Christ , and his Apostles ? That they renounced the former is manifest by the whole worlds and their own Confession ; That they renounced the latter , is no less manifest , by the same undeniable attestation ; and indeed out of the very word Reformation , which signifies a not immediate delivery . It is no less evident that the acknowledgment of the former , both was at the time of the Reformation , and now is the Principle of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome ; that is , to all the Churches they themselves communicated with , or were united to , before they broke ; for , 't is as visible as the sun at nonday , that France , Spain , Portugal , Italy , &c. consent and center in a ioynt acknowledgment of the Pope's Headship , and are therefore held by Protestants , Puritans , and all contrary sects for Papist Countreys . It is evident likewise that the acknowledgment of the latter was , and is to the sayd Churches the Principle of Vnity in faith , for they ever held the living voice of the Church , that is , the immediate Tradition or delivery of Pastours and forefathers an infallible Rule of faith ; wherefore , ' it is unavoidably consequent that the Protestants dissenting from , and disagreeing in both the sayd Principles , in which these then-fellow - Churches consented and agreed , were and are separated from all those Churches , and all that belong to those Churches : And this according to the two sayd Principles . Again , since nothing can bee more essentiall to a Church than that which is the Rule , and Root of Vnity both in faith and Government , it follows that the Protestants dissenting in both and acting accordingly , that is , having separated according to both , separated and 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 ●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 ●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 pro●ability wheron to Ground your faith . All which shows the vanity of your pretended fear of Idolatry , and new points of faith , and cōcludes 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 canō and civil Lawyers ; of which kinde of Cōtroversy 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 were not , I show . First , those inconveniences hee reckons up , as extortions , vsurpations of more than belong'd to them , causing animosities between the crown and the miter , &c. though they had been true , are evidently abuses of the Officer and argue no fault in the Office it self of Head of the Church , nor that the Right use of it ought therefore to bee taken away . Secondly , some of those pretended Abuses are his own deductions onely ; as that it is against the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction ; which hee endeavours not to show evidently out of the science of Politicks , which is proper to those matters , nor any thing else of this nature ; but out of two or perhaps three matters of fact which onely inferr'd that it happen'd so sometimes ; and then by the same reason Episcopacy and all the Offices in the world must bee abolish't and abrogated . Thirdly , that some of those pretended Abuses are indeed such , and not rather just Rights . hee no way proves ; for hee onely puts down that such and such things were done , but whether rightfully or no I presume hee will not think himself such a rare Iuris vtriusque Doctor , as to make a fit umpire to decide law quarrells of this highe'st nature ▪ And , on the other side , none is ignorant that either party had learned lawiers for them to avouch their pretences . I omit that the Kings were worsted so metimes and renounc't their pretence , as in that of investitures . Fourthly , the temporall laws hee cites , conclude not evidently a Right ; for , it is as easy for a Canon-lawier to object that the temporall laws wrong the Ecclesiasticall , as it is for civill lawiers to say that the Ecclesiasticall wrong theirs ; but with this disadvantage to the latter that reason gives more particular respect and charines ought to bee used in disannulling or retrenching Ecclesiasticall laws , than temporall , by how much they are neerer ally'd to the Church , and by consequence to the order of mankinde to Beatitude . Fifthly , hee abuses those pretended Abuses most unconscionably ; saying , that the Pope usurp't most unjustly all Right , civill , Ecclesiasticall , sacred , prophane , of all orders of men , Kings , Nobles , Bishops , &c. Which is such a loud-mouth'd calumnie ; such a far-stretching fiction , that it is as big as all Christendome . For , by this , no man in the Church was master or owner of his own Kingdome , Estate , house , nay not of the very bread hee eat , but by the Pope's good leave . Thus the Bishop in a fury of Schism runs himself out of breath ; nor will any thing pacify him or bring him into temper to speak a word of truth or sence , but my granting him his two conditions , that is my denying my own tenet , which I am defending . Sixthly , grant all those Abuses had been true ; was there no other remedy but division ? Had not the secular Governours the sword in their hand ? did it not ly in their power to chuse whether they would admit or no things destructive to their Rights ? yes : for the Bp. tells us p. 36. that All other Catholike countries , ( which hee knows held the Pope's supremacy , as well as England ) do maintain their own Priviledges inviolated : And , as for England , hee tells us , in a slovenly phrase , that our Ancestours were not so stupid as to sitt still , and blow their noses ; meaning that they did the same which other Catholike countries did ; so that , according to himself , there was a remedy still , and a means to keep their priviledges inviolated . Seventhly , put case , these temporall inconveniences had not been otherwise remediable , I conceive there is not a good Christian in the world that understands what a Church is , will say that Ecclesiasticall Communion is to bee broken for all the temporall concernments imaginable : For , first , that the well being and peace of a Church cannot consist without Vnity , is so evident , that the very terms would convince him of a contradiction who should deny it ; since distraction and dissention , ( the parents of dissolution and ruine ) must needs bee where there is no Vnity . Secondly , not onely the well being of a Church , but the very Being of it consists in it's Vnity ; for what scholler knows not that things of this nature have no other Vnity , ( nor consequently Entity or Being ) but that of order , that is of Superiority and subordination : Whence follows , that , if this Order bee broken , which is done by disacknowledging the former Ecclesiasticall chief Magistrate , the Vnity of the Church is dissolu'd , that is , her Entity is annihilated , that is , there is no one Church , that is , there is no Church . This act then of yours since it dissolu'd that which was the chief bond of Vnity in the former Church , was in it's own nature destructive , of a Church . A mischief which out-weighs the necessity of remedying the highest temporall inconveniences imaginable . Thirdly , since Christ came from heaven to plant a Church , and the Being of a Church consist in Order , it follows that Christ instituted the Order of the Church ; otherwise hee had not constituted a Church ; that is , hee had not done what hee came to do : Wherefore that fact which breaks the Order of the Church , and that in the highest manner by disacknowledging the highest Magistrate in the Church , is by good consequence in the highest manner against Christ's Institution and command , that is , in the highest manner sinfull and criminall ; and so , no temporall inconveniences can bee a competent plea for such a fact ; since no temporall inconvenience can bee a sufficient reason for a man to sin . Fourthly , if the Communion of a Church may bee broken for temporall miscarriages it follows that all the generall Councils were to no purpose ; since whensoever the observation of these generall Councils hapens to bee inconvenient to the temporall state , that is , sute not with the humours of the Governed , but are likely to breed combustion , the remedying the temporall ills ( according to the Bp. ) ought to oversway . The consequence is evident ; for general Councils cannot bee more sacred than the Communion of the Church , since they are the effects of it ; or rather , indeed , they have their form and Essence from this Communion . Since then this fact of theirs as appears by the charge broke Church Communion , and by the Bishop's plea , because of temporall inconveniences , they may for the same and with better reason break Councils too , and there 's an end of all . Fifthly , faith , that is , the supernaturall knowledge of God , is so essentially necessary for the salvation of mankinde , that no worldly consideration ought to ballance it . Now then since faith , if not one is none ; nor can it bee preseru'd one but by some certain Rule to keep it one , it follows that no temporall mischief can deserve a remedy accompany'd with the renouncing this certain Rule of faith : Wherefore , temporall inconveniences cannot with any face bee alledg'd by a Christian who held formerly no certain Rule of faith but the living voice of the present Church , that is immediate Tradition ( as did the first Reformers ) for a plea for them to renounce 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 i● 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 oblig●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 Presbyte●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 , tha● 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 cōsent 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 common concerns of the Church ? Or , without this , how is it possible there should bee any Vnity of Government or a Church , that is , a thing connected , united , or made one by Order , or by Vnity of Government ? The Church is God's Family ; can that bee calld a Family , where mutually independent persons live in severall rooms of the house , ( that is are many families ) without any Master , or Mistress of the house , or some person , or persons higher than the rest , by subordination to whom they become united or made one . The Church is a City , whose Vnity is in it self : can that bee calld a City , where each Master of a family is supreme , that is , where there are an hundred distinct supremes which stand aloof from one another without any Colligation of themselves under the notion of Governed ; by which means those many otherwise wholes become now parts and make up one whole , which is done by submitting to some superiour Magistrate or Magistrates ? The Church is a Christian Common-wealth ; can there bee a Common-wealth which can bèe calld one , if every City and town have a particular supreme Governour of it's own , without owing deference to any superiour or superiours ? Does not common sence inform us that in this cause each City is a particular , that is , one compleat self bounded Common-wealth ? that is , that those many Cities are more ones , that is , many Cōmon-wealths ? Wherefore either show us some one standing , ordinary form of Magistracy or Government to which all Christendome ought to submit , and some Magistrate , or Magistrates , Governour , or Governours to whom they owe a constant obedience , ( which is impossible in your Grounds ) or else acknowledge plainly that you have left no Vnity of Government in God's Church at all , but have unravell'd all the frame and disannull'd all the Being of a Church , which consisted essentially in Order ; and made that parts of it have no more connexion or Vnity than a rope of sand . Yet as long as these pittifull shufflers can but tell the abused Reader in generall terms that they acknowledge the discipline left by Christ and his Apostles , they make account their adherents will renounce both their eyes and common sence , and bee content to follow hood-wintk't after the empty tinkling sound of these hollow and nothing signifying phrases . Perhaps , the Bp. will reply , that a generall Council is acknowledg'd by them as of obligatory Authority ; and that , therefore , there is yet a means left for Vnity of Government in the whole Church . Vpon which answer the good Protestant Reader thinks them humble and reasonable men . But this is indeed the greatest mockery that can bee invented . For , first , they give us no certain Rule to know which is a generall Council , which not , that is who are to bee call'd to that Council , who not ; for once taking away a certain Rule of faith , there is no certainty who are Hereticks , that is , men not to bee call'd to a Council as to sit in it and vote ; who good Catholiks , that is , to bee call'd thither to sit and vote there . Next , generall Councils being onely call'd upon extremities , if the Churche's Vnity in Government consist onely in them , it follows that the Church hath actually no Vnity of Government but just at that pinch when a generall Council is to bee call'd ; that is , it is never a Church , but at that happy time onely , when it is most unhappy . But , the greatest piece of foolery is , that , they having renounc't an actuall standing Authority , pretend ( to show their goodnes , ) a readines to submit to the Authority of a generall Council , which themselves will acknowledge with the next breath impossible to bee had ; that is , they profess themselves very humbly and heartily ready , though they have renounc't one Government , yet to submit to another , which can never bee , and so is never likely to trouble or controll them . Is not this a piece of hollow hearted humility . Yet that such Councils as they will daign to call generall are held by them impossible , Dr. H. tells us Reply p. 30. in those words , generall Councils are now morally impossible to bee had , the Christian world being under so many Empires , and divided into so many Cōmunions , that it is not visible to the eye of man , how they should bee regularly assembled ; Here , Reader , thou seest all n●y discourse asserted ; to wit , that God's Church , as they have form'd it , is so divided into disparate parts , that , as there is no Vnity of Government in it now , ( for if there were , there would bee also a means to assemble a generall Council ) so it is impossible there should bee any for the future according to their Grounds , till some one temporall Governour come to Lord it ov●r the whole , or greatest part of the Christian world , which in all likelihood will bee never . Consider again their candour , they have renounc't the former notion of God's Church , and his Authority whose proper office it was to call a generall Council of that whole Church , as hee did often , and then profess a willingnes to submit to such a Council , or a Representative of their new notion'd Church ; but , with the next breath , lament ( alas ) that such a generall Council , or Representative cannot possibly bee had , ( after themselves had taken order to hinder all means of having it ) and so they are free and need obey no body . How much better and stronger were it argued thus ; that , since it is most irrationall and unbeseeming God's Providence , that his Church should bee destitute of a means to remedy her extremities , that is ; of means to gather a generall Council , and that there was a means to doe this before you rejected the Pope's Authority , and by your own Confession no possibility of it since ; that therefore , you have renounced the right notion of a Church , and the right Government of that Church . This then is our totall charge against you ; that you have broke the Vnity of the former Church , ( and not of the Court onely , as you trifle it ) which you were in , by renouncing those Principles in which consisted her Vnity both in Faith and Government , and to which Principles the whole Church , you broke from , consented . Thus far the matter of fact evidences . Nor is it less evident that you have substituted no certain Rule of faith , nor any certain or particular form of Government ; which can ground an Vnity , to your new fashion'd Church in either respect , but , that you have turn'd Evidence of Authority ( the onely certain Rule and Root of faith ) into a drowsy probability ; and , by consequence , faith thus grounded , into Opinion ; as , likewise , that you have turn'd the former Government of the Church into a perfect Anarchy ; there being no colligation or Vnity of the whole together , ty any by of Government ; and that ( had not God's mercy been above your malice ) you had made the Church , our Hierusalem , which is built as a City at Vnity with it self , ( that is which hath an Vnity of Government ) an heap of stones ; without , connexion , without order , and consequently without being which consisted in that Order . This is your crime , in this lies your sinfull guilt of Schism and heresy , that your fact and tenet is intrinsecally destructive to the very being of God's Church , and that it tears and rents it peece-meal all asunder . A mischief equally pernicious to man-kind's attaining Beatitude , as the renoūcing the supreme Government in a Kingdome or commonwealth would bee in order to their safe enjoyment of their temporall livelihoods ; and , therefore , no waies to bee ballanced or excused by alledging temporall inconveniences ; since it as far ouerpoises it's excuse as Eternity of bliss does a peece of earth ; that is , infinitely . His third sort of Grounds , is the weaknes of the Pope's pretences , and the exemption of the Britannick Churches from forrain Iurisdiction by the Council of Ephesus . For the fitst , the Bp. never so much as directly mentions that in which wee place the strength of the Pope's pretence , of his supreme Authority , much lesse impugnes it , save onely a little on the by ( as it were ) in his sleight way : 't is this , that it was held and deliver'd by a world of immediate fathers to sons as from their fathers , & so upwards as from Christ , that this Authority was sacred , of Christ's Institution , of faith , and recommended to us by the same Rule that assured us Christ was God. Vpon this tenure as strongly supported as nature could bear , held demonstrably evident , and so shown by us ; not yet answer'd or pretended to bee answer'd by the Protestant party , wee Ground this Doctrine of the Pope's Headship , or the substance of his Authority : But , I fear , the Bp. either understands not our tenure , ( for , otherwise , sure hee would have nam'd it ) or else hee is impugning some Canon Lawier , and the extent of the Pope's Authority ; in stead of impugning the Church , and the substance of the said Authority As for his second trifle ; I have already shown ( Sect. 4. ) that the Britannick Churches have no influence upon our Churches descended from saxons ; nor shall hee ever show a syllable in the Council of Ephesus exempting them from the Pope's Iurisdiction , as Head of the Church ; however Cyprus and some others are there exempted from a neighbouring superiour falsly pretending a Iurisdiction over them ; But of this more shall bee said hereafter in this present Section . The Vnity of the Church being of such importance , and the fact breaking it , by consequence so hainous , the alledging the greatest abuses imaginable are absolutely concluded insufficient excuses for such a fact ; much more , unles it bee shown , there were no other possible means to remedy them . Hereupon I alledged that it was of little concernment to examine whether his complaints were true or false , since hee does not show there was no other remedy , but division . First , the Bishop replies sharply . What ? is it of little concernment to examin whether the Grounds bee sufficient or no ? well leap't my Lord ; I speak of the inconsiderablenes of their truth , or falshood ; your L● talks of inconsiderablenes of their s●fficiency , & pretends against both plain words and conscience that I wave that . There may bee ob●ections against the Abuses perhaps of all Governours in the world , and these also true : but their truth does not infer their sufficiency for rejecting that very Government as long as they are less considerable than good of the Government it self , and that there is another cure : This it that in which I show'd your manner of arguing defective in the main , because you never prou'd nor ever shall , that there was no other remedy except division ; for , unles you put in this ( and more too ) your argument stands in this posture , True complaints against Governours , whether otherwise remediable or no , are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government . At which position , if spoke out candidly , I hope you will blush : though it bee perfectly your own , cloak't a little in other , ( but equivalent ) terms . Next , hee tells us it is a negative and so it belongs not to him to prove it . Yes , my Ld , it belongs to your party , or any one who rises against an actuall Authority , either to show that that Authority was none , or else that though it was a lawfull one , yet there was no other remedy for it's Abuses , but a totall Abolishment of it . Otherwise , the very maiesty which Government carries in it's notion , the Vnity , peace , and a thousand blessings and conveniences which spring from that Vnity , found in the common acknowledment of that Authority , oversway the private credit , or any other less publike concerns , which the disobedient party can pretend to ; and render's their fact of rising , irrationall and destructive to the common , engaging them needlesly in a thousand distractions , and by consequence , hazards of ruin which attend such divisions . Thirdly , hee would persuade the Reader that a negative is not capable of proof , or at least not so easily capable of it ; for answer I refer him to any boy who hath been two years at the Vniversities , who will inform him that negatives may witht equall evidence bee concluded in Celarent & Ferio as affirmatives may in Barbara , and Darij . Lastly , the proof which hee proposes for his negative to show no other remedy , ( but dares not much stick to them ) are both equally competent to France , Spain , &c who yet ( as hee tells us in the next page in contradiction to himself , here ) found other remedies to preserve their priviledges inviolated , and his pretended proofs are such pittifull ones , ( though on them is built the sufficiency of their motives ) that they evencry for mercy as soon as they show their faces . They are these that the King of England could not call the Pope and his ourt to a personall account , and that the Pope would not ease them upon many Adresses made ? what then ? Had not the King the sword in his own hands ? did it not ly in his power to right himself as hee ●isted , and to admit those pretended eneroachments onely so far as hee thought iust and fitting ? Nay do not your self lay open and repeat in many places that not onely Kings of England but also those of all other countries both could and did do it often , and by doing so preserve their priviledges inviolated ? How does this prove then that there was sufficient Grounds of dividing from the former Church , since your self confess so often it could have been remedied otherwise ? Or , how is it a sufficient motive to abolish an Authority for the Abuses , which very pretended Abuses they had power to curb and keep within compass without dividing , and so that they should not violate their priviledges ? Not a word then hath the Bp. brought to prove they had sufficient Grounds of division , that is , that there was no other remedy : but , in stead thereof , expresly told us the contrary , and manifoldly contradicted himself . I added . And much more , if the Authority bee of Christ's Institution no iust cause can possibly ●ee given for it's abolishment . The merry Bp. laughs at this , ( as hee calls it ) Kind of arguing ; which neither looks like an Argument , nor was pretended by mee as such ; but as a consideration which much aggravates the charge and obliges in all reason the renouncers of this Authority to look very charily to the sufficiency of the causes of th●t their division : For since it follows out of the terms , that , ere they renounced it , and by thus renouncing it left to bee Catholikes , they immediately before held it as Catholikes do , that is , held it as a point of faith , and of Christ's Institution ; and since it is evident that none ought to change his faith which hee and his Ancestours immemorially embrac'd but upon evident Grounds ; again , since it is evident likewise and confest that temporall motives ought not to make us break Christ's commands , which is done by rejecting a Government which hee instituted : Two things are consequent hence to their disadvantage ; one , that their motives ought to bee rigoro sly evident and demonstrative for their renouncing it , since d●nger of damnation ensves upon their miscarriage , and this even in their own thoughts as they were lay'd in their minds when they first began to meditate a breach : The other , that the pretended causes ( especially temporall inconveniences ) for the abolishing this Authority can no waies iustify the first breakers who held it formerly a point of faith , since no iust causes can bee given to renounce an Authority held to bee instituted by Christ ; As then it had been rationall to Reply to King H. the 8th remaining yet a Catholike , and beginning to have thoughts to abolish this Authority , upon such and such temporall inconveniences that his maiesty and his Ancestours had held it of divine Institution and that therefore there could bee no iust cause to abolish it , so it is equally seasonable to Reply to my Lord of Derry , who undertakes here to vindicate him by alledging the same thing , that these causes nor any else were sufficient to make them begin to break , because ere they begun the breach , they held this Authority to bee of Christ's Institution ; and therefore it is a folly for him to think to iustify them by huddling together causes and motives , and crying them up for sufficient till hee can show they had Evidence of the Truth of the opposite point , greater than the pretended Evidence of Authority , universall Tradition , which they actually had for their former tenet If a cause bee sufficient to produce an effect , and equally apply'd 'tis manifest the same effect will follow . Hence , as an argument of the insufficiency of their motives of Division , I alledged that all other Catholike countries had the same exceptions , yet neither broke formerly , nor follow your Example . Hee answers , first ; Few or none have sustain'd so great oppression ; which signifies , I know not well whether any have or no : or , for any thing I know , some have ; Nor does hee prove the contrary otherwise than by a pleasant saying of a certain Pope . Any thing will serve him . Next hee tells us , all other countries have not right to the Cyprian priviledges , as Brittain hath . And how proves hee that this country had any by that Council ? Is England named in the Council of Ephesus , which exempted Cyprus from the Patriarch of Antioch ? No. Is Brittain at least ? No. How come wee then to bee particularly priviledg'd by that Council . Why the Bp. of Derry thinks so . His Grounds ? Because that Council ordains , that no Bp. should occupy a Province , which was not from , the beginning under his Predecessours . And how proves hee the application , that England was never anciently under the Pope as Head of the Church ? from Sr Henry Spelman's old-new manuscript , and two or three raggs of History , or misunderstood Testimonies . Are they demonstrative or rigorous Evidences ? Here my Ld is wisely silent . Will less serve than such proofs to iustify such a separation ? Hee is silent again . Were they a thousand times as many , are they of a weight comparable to a world of witnesses proceeding upon the Grounds of immediate d●livery from hand to hand , which recommended and ascertain'd the contrary ? Alas ! hee never thinks of nor considers that at all ; but very wisely puts his light grains in one end of the scales , negl ●cting to put our pounds in the other ; and then brags that his thin grains are overweight . The third particularizing motive is his own unprou'd saying , and is concluded with a boast that hee is not the onely schismatick in the world but hath Brothers . Is this the way to argue against us ! To call all those Christians which profess the name of Christ , and communicate with himself in the same guilt , and then say hee hath fellows in his schism ? Hee knows wee grant them not to bee truly-call'd Christians , but in the name onely and equivocally , as a painted man is styld ' a man ; If hee will show that any Congregation of truly-call'd Christians partakes with him in the separation from Rome , let him show that these pretended Christians , for those points in which they differ from us , did not renounce the onely certain Rule of faith , Tradition , or delivery of immediate forefathers ; or , that there is any certain and infallible Rule but that . Otherwise , they are cut of from the Rule and Root of faith , and by consequence not in a true appellation to bee call'd faithfull or Christians ; otherwise , they heard not the immediately foregoing Church for those points which they innovated , and so are to us no properly call'd Christians , but , according to our saviours counsell as Heathens and publicans : I mean those who knowingly & wilfully separated . Talking voluntarily , my Ld , according to the dictates of your own fancy will not serve in a rigorous Controversy . First , show that those you call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of faith , and so any faith , and , that they have not onely a probable and fallible Groūd , that is opinion onely for their faith ; and then you shall contradict your own best and more candid writers who confess it in terms ; and do such a miracle as your Ancestours never attain'd to ; nor any of wit and ingenuity attempted , seeing it impossible to bee done rationally . I alledged , in the next place , to show more their inexcusablenes and the infussiciency of their pretended motives for breaking , the example of our own country and forefathers , who had the same cause to cast the Pope's Supremacy of the Land , yet rather proferr'd to continue in the peace of the Church , than to att●mpt so destructive an innovation . The Bp. replies , first , that wee should not mistake them , a●d that they still desire to live in the Communion of the Catholike Church , &c. No , my Ld , I doe not mistake you , but know very well you would bee willing and glad too , the former Church should own you for hers ; I doubt not but you are apprehensive enough of what honour would accrue to you if wee would account you true Catholikes ; and what disgrace you get by being accounted Hereticks and Schismaticks by us . But yet your desire of staying in the Church is conditionall , that you may bee permitted to remain in her Communion , and yet have liberty still to do and hold what you list . Do you not think every Rebell , that renounces both the former Government and laws , loves not still to bee held a good Commonwealths man , and not to bee outlaw'd or punish't , but permitted to enjoy the priviledge of the Commonwealth , whose Vnity hee hath broken , so hee may have his own intentions ? Had Iack Straw , or Wat Tiler , after they had rebell'd , a mind to bee thought Rebells , or to bee hang'd ; or , upon the Governours declaring them Outlaws and punishable , was it a competent plea for them to say they desir'd to remain in the peaceable Communion of the Commonwealth as far as the Court would give them leave ? Your fact , my Ld , of breaking the Vnity of the former Church is much more evident than theirs , being visible to the eyes of the whole world ; and infinitely more hainous , since it concerns the order to Eternity . After this fact so visible , so enormous ; 't is no charity nor courtesy in you , but a request of an unreasonable favour from us , to admit you into Communion ; and would bee most absurd in Government , most contradictory in terms ; signifying thus much that they should bee still held by us for good subjects , who profess and defend still their Rebellion against the former Church Government ; and for the right faithfull , who have no Rule of faith at all , nay pretend themselves to no more than an opinion-grounding or probability . Secondly , hee tells us , our Ancestours did not stupidly sit still and blow their noses , when they saw themselves thus abused ? I answer whether they blew their noses or no it matters not ; but , did they renounce the Pope's Authority as Head of the Church ? This is the thing I deny'd of them , and charge upon the Bp. what saies hee to this ? Hee denies it too , after hee had shuffled about a while ; ( for hee must have the liberty to take his swing ) that is , hee saies the same I do , and grants , what hee pretend's to confute . For , after hee had reckon'd up what things our Ancestours had done against the Pope , hee adds , as the top of the Climax , that they threatned him further to make a wall of separation between him and them . Which shows that this is the most they did . For , if they but threatned they did it not . But , 't is evident that you have done what they onely threatned to do , and in excuse of your doing it , you adde immediately , that you have more Experience than your Ancestours had . Thus the Bp. something candidly at present : Yet , wee have seen him heretofore , in contradiction to himself here , both affirm and maintain that K. H. the 8th when hee renounc't the Pope made no new law , but onely declar'd the ancient law of England ; which signifies that the wall of separation was not onely threaten'd but made formerly ; for the former laws were actually in force before K. H's time , nay in the very beginning of his Raign , as himself confesses p. 2s . l. 7. 8. And wee shall see him hereafter bring an whole Chapter to make good the same impudent assertion , which would put out the eyes and blot out the acknowledg'd notions of the whole world . An excellently bad cause needs an excellently good memory . Now then since you have at unawares acknowledg'd so much truth as that they who had the same causes of separation which you have , yet did not separate as you do , let us reflect a little upon the reason you give of this difference . 'T is this , that you have more experience than your Ancestours ; but whence this greater experience springs , or out of what Experiments which they had not , you gather'd this experience , you have not one word . Are you wiser than they were in the Art of Governing as to this point ? Sure your self do not beleeve it , nor can say it with modesty ; since by professing you made no new law in this matter , ( that is retain'd the old , which you receiu'd from them ) you confess you know not how to make better . Were they cowards and durst not make those prouisions they saw necessary for the common good ! Neither . They actually did ( say you ) exclude the Pope's Supremacy out of England as far as they judged it necessary for the tranquillity of the Kingdome . Well then , if they did as much as they judged necessary , and knew as well what was necessary as you , why did you do more , Because , forsooth , you had more experience . But does this experience , furnish you with a reason sufficient to iustify your separation ! If it do , produce it ; if not , why do you alledge this more experience ? And , indeed , how come you to pretend to it ! For , since experience of necessity supposes an Experiment whence 't is deriu'd , either some new thing happen'd by which this great necessity of separation which your Ancestors were ignorant of came to bee discover'd to you , or else you had no more experience than they . Therefore , good my Ld , tell us what this new Experimēt was : But , it seems you thought it either not handsom to bee owned , or not worth the owning that assigne us none at all , telling us onely in generall terms you have more experience than your Ancestors had , &c. that is , in stead of producing some cause of separating which might vindicate your Church from Schism , to assigne an effect without a cause ; and defend it with the same plea as a man would do his Rebellion , who rising against his actuall Governours , and upon that score standing accused of Treason , should go about to maintain it was therefore lawfull for him to Rebell , because hee was wiser than the former sub●ects ; and then tell that troublesome Adversary who should press him to prove this greater Wisedome , that hee has more experience , and that hee is so . However , since you are resolu'd to make a secret of this rare Experiment , and that , by consequence , wee are not to expect from you any Grounds of your greater experience , let us see at least what it is you pretend to have more enperience of . 'T is this , that their Ancestors remedies were not soueraign or sufficient enough , &c. Now these remedies of theirs being their rationall laws , ( as hee intimates presently after ) do but observe how , like a reeling Dutchman making indentures with his legs , the Bp's discourse staggers now to the one , now to the other far distant side of the contradiction . Hee tells us here that the remedies , that is , laws of our Ancestours were not sufficient enough ; yet maintains stoutly before that in the separation no new law was made , that is , that the same laws or remedies were formerly as then , but were not formerly sufficient ; that is , that the same thing is not as sufficient as it is . And this signifies for the Bp. to have more experience than his Ancestors . Again , it being alledged here that the former laws were insufficient , and acknowledg'd the page before that all other Catholike countries do maintain their priviledges inviolate , by means of their laws ( as I conceive and hee intimates ) which laws 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 Au●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 & Governmēt 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 fund●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 Vni●y of faith , and Government ; on the other side into meer folly and indeed cōtradiction 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 , these expressions , if taken as falling from their mouths & pens , I conceive sound not over much of Moderation . All the Moderation consists here , that my Ld of Derry had a mind to break a good iest , and assure us very Sadly p. 39. l. 7. that ( notwithstanding all this ) they forbear to censure us ; which signifies , first , that they do not censure at all whom they have already censured in the height ( as is manifest by their former expressions ; ) next , that though they beleeve those former expressions to be true , and that wee are indeed such , that is though they hold us for such , yet they do not censure us for such : Awitty contradiction ! And lastly that though our Church erre in credendis , contradict Scripture blasphemously & perniciously in her doctrine , nay though her all grounding Principles be flatt Errors , and that she pertinaciously & unrelentingly persist in those doctrines ( as she does ) nor is ever likely to change or retract them , yet for all this she is not to be held as hereticall ( though this be the very definition of Heresie ) but as a true Church still , nor is to be censured to be otherwise . Good charitable non-sence ! Hee tells me , first , that hee speakes of forbearing to censure other Churches , but I answer of communicating with them , and that therefore I err from the purpose . Yet himself six lines before ( so forgetfull he is ) quotes S. Cyprian for removing no man from our Communion , &c. And how they should refuse to communicate with any , unles they first iudge him & censure him to deserve to be avoided , that is , naught , I must confess I know not . Next , hee tells us one may in some cases very lawfully communicate with materiall Idolaters , Hereticks , &c. In pious offices , though not in their Idolatry , Heresie , &c. Thus we have lost the question . Who for bids them to go to visit the sick with them , or such like religious duties ? The question is whether they may communicate with them in any publike solemne act , performable by Catholikes , as they are subjects of such a common wealth , from which the other is out law'd , or performable by those others , as belonging to a distinct sect ? Again this position of Moderation destroies all order & Government both of Church & state ; for , by this , out law'd persons may be traffick'r & treated with so we joyn not with them in their rebellion ; and all the whole world ( heathens too ) may be of one Communion ; especially all Hereticks , who all agree in some common Principle of Christianity with the rest . The Bishop's Proviso makes all the world Brothers & friends , though one part should remain most obstinate enemies both to God & his Church ; for still , as long as this Principle holds of communicating with them in all things but their Errors , God's Church shall become a courteous gallimafry of all the filth Hell & Error could compound to deform her , and wear in her externall face a motley mask of as many colours as there are sects in the world : Perhaps Heathens too must make up a part of this Communion , provided we abstain onely to communicate with them in their Idolatry . Thus they who want Grounds to give nerves to their Government , are forced to embrace a counterfeit Kind-heartednes ; and under that plausible vizard vent much refined perniciousnes as is able at once to ruin all sence , reason , order , discipline , Government , common wealth , Church . Thirdly he tells us that the Orthodox Christians did sometimes communicate with the hereticall Arians . By which you see he is a kind disposition to admit even those to his Communion who deny Christ's divinitie . The Arians were known to cloak themselves so craftily in words , that they could not for a long time be certainly discover'd ; nor is it any wonder that for a while Hereticks be tolerated , untill they be both heard and a time of repentance be prescribed them . Fourthly , he tells us he hath shown how the Primitive Catholikes communicated with the Schismaticall Novatians in the same publike divine offices . But he is so reserved as not to direct us where he hath shown this ; nor could an ordinary inquiry finde it out ; and in his p. 282. which place seems most proper for that discourse , he onely names the word [ Novatians ] without proving any thing concerning them . Now the Novatians were simply Schismaticks , and transported onely by a too rigorous zeal to a disobedience to the Church in a formerly received practice ; with such as these it is lawfull to communicate , till , upon their contumacy , the Church shall excommunicate them . Again , as long as Schismaticks & those who are erroneous in faith , are onely in via ( as we may say ) and not in termino , and hardned into an obstinacy , there is a prudentiall latitude allow'd by the Church , delaying her censures as long as shee can possibly without wronging her Government , as was de facto practised in England till the 10th of Q. Elizabeth : But this is not enough to prove they were admitted into Communion , because they were tolerated for a certain time while there was hope they would not be obstinate , but would return , the Apostle himself prescribing a time of triall , before they are to be avoided upon necessitie . But , can my L d of Derry show a parallell to our case , that any renounc't the former Rule of faith , immediate Tradition of Ancestors , the former Government , and many other points recommendedy that Rule , and obstinately persisted to disavow both , reviling , writing against , excommunicating , nay persecuting with loss of Estates , and often times of life the professors of the thus renounced faith & Government ; can he show , I say , that such were ever admitted by the Church into Communion ? unles he can show this , he beats the Air , for this onely comes to our point . S. Cyprian's case reaches not hither ; he had no reason to remove any from his Communion , since he was in the wrong ; nor could hee possibly see with evidence that the immediate Tradition of all those Churches with whom hee communicated did avouch his tenet , for hee was the man that brought in the noveltie ; your renouncing the former Rule of faith , immediate delivery of fore fathers , and the former Government , with many other points recommended by that Rule , is most evident , nay confest , avouched , & still maintain'd by your own obstinate selves . Fifthly , hee told us that the Catholikes call'd the Donatists their brethren . I answer , so are Catholikes bound to call the Protestants now ; nay Turks , Heathens , and in generall all men who are yet in a capacite to attain beatitude , that is , all but the damned in hell , who are eternally hardned in enmitie against God. S. Peter ( Art. 3. v. 17. ) call'd the Iews who crucyfy'd Christ , his Brethren , yet never meant by that appellation that they were good Christians . Sixthly , he objects that the Donatists proceeding upon my Principle would not acknowledge the Catholikes their Brethren . And what is this Principle of mine ? 'T is this , as put down here by himself ; that a man cannot say his own religion is true but he must say the opposite is false ; nor hold his own certain without censuring another man's . Good Reader , reflect a little upon this proposition he cavills at , and then take , if thou canst , the just dimensions of the unmeasurable weaknes of error and it's Abettors . Do not truth and certainty involve essentially in their notions an oppositenes and contrarietie to falshood & error ? Does not true signifie not-false ? How is it possible then a man indued with the common light of reason can hold a thing true and yet not hold it 's opposite false ? yet this plain self evident proposition , in other terms the self-same with this , that a thing cannot both be & not be at once , is denied by the Bp. nay accounted disgracefull to hold it . Whereas , indeed , it is not mine nor the Donatists onely , but the common Principle of nature , which the silliest old wife and least boy come to the use of reason cannot but know . Error prest home cannot burst out at length into less absurdities than denying the first Principles . The Bishop of Derry having shown us how well skill'd he is in Principles by renouncing that first Nature-taught one , proceeds immediately to establish some Principles of his own , which he calls evident & undeniable , so to confute the former . The first is , that particular Churches may fall into error : where , if by Errors , he means opinions onely ; 't is true : if points of faith , 't is not so undeniable as he thinks ; in case that particular Church adhere firmly to her Rule of faith , immediate Tradition , for that point already there setled ; that is , if shee proceed as a Church . If he wonder at this , I shall increase his admiration by letting him know my minde , that I see it not possible how even the pretended Protestants Church of England ( could it without self condemnation have owned the immediate delivery of fore fathers , and onely proceeded & stuck close to that Rule ) should ever come to vary from the former Protestant Beleef ; for , as long as the now fathers taught their Children what was held now , and the Children ( without looking farther ) beleeved their fathers and taught their Children as they beleeved , and so successively , it followes in terms that the posterity remote a thousand generations would still beleeve as their fathers do now . But , as their religion , built on Reformation , that is , not immediate Tradition , will not let them own immediate Tradition for their Rule of faith , so neither , did they own it , could their certainty arrive to that of our Churches , strengthen'd by so many super-added assistances . His second Principle is , that all errors are not Essentiall or fundamentall . I answer that if by Errors he means onely opinions , as he seems to say in the next paragraph , then none at all are Essentiall ; but what is this to my proposition which spoke of Religion not of opinions ; unles perhaps ( which is most likely & consonant to the Protestant Grounds ) the Bishop makes account that Religion and opinion are all one . But , if he means Error in a matter of faith , then every such error is fundamentall and ( to answer this third Principle with the same labour ) destroies the being of a Church . For , since a Church must necessarily have a Rule of faith , otherwise she were no Church , and that 't is impossible to conceive how man's nature should let her proceed so quite contrary to her Principles as to hold a thing as a matter of faith , not proceeding upon her onely Rule of faith , this being a flat contradiction ; Again , since the Rule of faith must be both certain and plain ( without which properties 'tis no Rule ) it follows that an error in a matter of faith argues an erroneousnes in the Rule of faith , which essentially and fundamentally concerns the being of a Church . His fourth Principle is that every one is bound , according to the just extent of his power , to free himself from those not essentiall errors . Why so , my L d ? if those errors be not essentiall , they leave according to your own Grounds , sufficient means of Salvation , and the true being of a Church : How prove you then that you ought to break Church Communion which is essentially destructive to the being of a Church to remedy this , or hazard your Salvation ) as you know well Schism does ) when you might have rested secure ? Is it an evident and undeniable Principle that you ought to break that in which consists the being of a Church to remedy that which you confess can consist with the being of a Church ? or , is it an undeniable Principle that you ought to endanger your soul where you grant there is no necessity ? Say not I suppose things gratis , your friend Dr. H. tells you out of the fathers how horrid a crime Schism is , how vtterly unexcusable ; the undeniable evidence of fact manifests you to have broke Church Communion , that is to have Schismatized from the former Church , which you must be forced to grant unles you can show us that you still maintain the former Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government . These are the points which you violently broke and rejected ; show either that these were not fundamentally concerning the Vnity and cōsequently the Entity of the former Church , or else confess that you had no just cause of renouncing them , and so that you are plainly both Schismatick & Heretick . But 't is sufficient for your Lp's pretence of Moderation without so much as mentioning them in particular to say here in generall terms that the points you renounc'd were not essentiall , were accidentall , were errors , vlcers , opinions , hay & stubble , the plague , weeds , &c. And thus ends the first part of your wisely maintained Moderation , as full of contradictions & absurdities as of words . The second proof of their Moderation is their inward charity . I love to see charity appearing out-wardly : me thinks hanging and persecution disguize her very much , and your still clamorous noises against us , envying us even that poore happines that we are able with very much a doe to keep our heads above water and not sink utterly . He proves this in ward charity by their externall works , as he calls them their prayers for us ; He should have said , words , the former were their works , and prou'd nothing but their malice . But let us examin their prayers : they pray for us he sayes daily ; and we do the same for them ; nay more , many of ours hazard their lives daily to do good to the souls even of themselves , our enemies ; and to free them , as much as in us lies , from a beleeved danger . Which shows now the greater charity ? But their speciall externall work , as he calls it , is their solemn anniversary prayer for our conversion every good friday . And this he thinks is a speciall peece of charity in their Church ; being ignorant ( good man ) that this very thing is the solemn custome of our Church every good friday , as is to be seen in our Missall , and borrowed thence by their book of common prayer , among many other things ; But let us see whether the Protestants , according to their Grounds , can be sayd to pray for us at all in particular on Good friday , or for our conversion , as he , forget-full of his own tenet , affirms . Their prayer is this , Mercifull god , who hast made all men , and hatest nothing that thou hast made , nor wouldest the death of a Sinner , but rather that he should be converted and live ; have mercy upon all Iews , Turks , Infidells , and Hereticks , &c. Fetch them home to thy flock , that they may be saved , &c. I ask , now , under which of these heads does he place Papists , when he pretends their cōversion is here pray'd for in particular ? Vnder that of Hereticks ? How can this stand with his Principles , who acknowledges ours a true Church , that is , not hereticall ? and , lately told us , as a point of his Churches Moderation , that she forbears to censure others . Again , they grant us to be of Christ's flock , already , & in a capacy to be saved , whereas those they pray for here are supposed reducible to Christ's flock , ( that is , not yet of it ) and by being thus reduced , capable of Salvation ; that is , incapable of it before they be thus reduced ; none of these therefore are competent to us , nor are we prayed for there , as Hereticks , if his own Grounds & his own pretended Moderation are to be held to by himself . Much less will he say we are pray'd for there under the notion of Iews , Turcks , or Infidels , for this were to censure us worse , nor was ever pretended by Protestants . It follows then that our conversion in particular is not there pray'd for at all , but that there is such a pittifull dissonancy between the pretended Church of England's doctrine & her practice , that her greatest Bp's & Doctors cannot make sence of one related to the other . Nay more , since hee culls out this Good friday , prayer for the speciall externall work of their charity towards us , and that this cannot concern us at all ( without a self contradiction ) it follows that their other externall works argue no charity at all towards us . And this is the great inward charity the Bp. brags of , as a proof of their due Moderation . He adds , that we excommunicate them once a year , that is the day before Good-friday . I reply , that to expect a Church should not excommunicate those whom she holds to be Schismaticks and Hereticks , is at once to be ignorant of the Churches constant practice , and the common Principles of Government . It being equally evident , that the Church in all ages tooke this course with obstinate Adversaries of faith , as it is , that Society in the world can subsist without putting a distinction and separating avowed enemies and Rebels from true subjets & friends . If then they hold us Hereticks , ( and unles they hold us such , they do not pray for us in particular as is pretended ) they ought in all reason to excommunicate ; as indeed sometimes they did some particular Catholikes in their Churches ; though not all our Church in generall , their new started congregation was conscious to herself , that she had no such Authority ; which made her also instead of those words in our Good-friday prayer , ad sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam revocare digneris , recall them to our holy Mother the Catholike & Apostolike Church , vary the grave and too authoritative phrase , ( too loud ( alas ) for her as taken in contra distinction to us ) into that dwindling , puling puritanicall expressions of one flock , the rem nant of the true Israelites , one fold , under one Shepheard , &c. equally pretendable ( if taken alone ) by Quakers , as by them , since they include no visible Marks in their notion , which can satisfy us of any distinction between the one & the other . The third proof of their Moderation is , that they added nothing but took away onely from the former doctrines of the Church , which he expresses by saying they pluck up the weeds , but retain all the plants of saving truths . I answer'd that to take away goodnes is the greatest evill , &c. He replies that he spake of taking away errors . No my L d , this was not the intent of your discourse there ; both because you pretended there to prove something whereas I conceive to rely on onely the cheap saying that all is erroneous you tooke away , proves nothing , but is a meere self supposition , as also because it is not a proof of Moderation to take away errors , but a rigorously requisite act of Iustice . Your intent then was to show the Moderation in your method of proceeding , which you pretended all the way long , to have been that you added no new thing but onely took away something of the old . This I glanc't at as a fond and idle pretence ; since till you prove evidently and demonstrably from your new Rule of faith , that the former of immediate Tradition which asserted those points denied by you did there in erre , the presumption stands against you that it was Christ's doctrine which you maimed by thus detracting from it ; or , if you suppose gratis that 't was not Christ's doctrine , but errors & falshoods , then it is not proper to call it Moderation , but rather an act of necessary charity to root it out : I know it is an easy matter to call all weeds which your nice stomachs cannot digest ; but if that point of immediate Tradition renounced by you , which onely could ascertain us that there was any such thing as Christ or God's word , be a weed , I wonder what can deserve to be called a flower . What he vapours of holding what the primitive fathers iudged necessary and now Catholike Church does , is an emptie brag & vanishes into smoak by it self , since ( as shall shortly bee shown ) their Grounds can never determin what is the Catholike or universall Church . In order to the same proof of his Moderation , I likewise answered that he who positively denies ever adds the contrary , to what he takes away ; and that he who makes it an Article that there is no Purgatory , no mass , no prayer to Saints , has as many Articles as he who holds the contrary . He replies that he knows the contrary : instancing that they neither hold it an Article of faith that there is a Purgatory , nor that there is none . I ask , what kinde of things are their thirty nine Articles ? Are they of faith , or opinions onely ? I conceive his Lp. will not say they are meere opinions , but contra-distinctive of the Protestant faith from ours ; at least the good simple Ministers were made beleeve so when they swore to maintain them , and unles they had certainty as strongly grounded as divine beleef for those points or Articles ; how could they in reason reject the cōtrary tenets which they held by divine beleef . Now the 22. Article defines the negative to Purgatory & three other points of our doctrine ; yet this ill-tutour'd Child tells his old crasy mother , the Church of England , that she lies & that he knows the contrary . Now his reason is better then his position ; 't is this because a negative cannot be an Article of faith . So that he would not have held it of faith against the Manichees , that there are not two God's ; because the proposition is negative ; nor that the Divells shall not be saved , nor the Saints in Heaven damn'd , nor that there is no Salvation but through Iesus-Christ ; all these by the Bishop's Logick must cease to be Articles of faith , and become indifferent and unconcerning opinions , because they are all negatives . After this he talks ramblingly again as his custome is , of Theologicall opinions , indifferent opinions , &c. and then on his own kinde word assures us that these points are such , and so wipes his hands of them . His last proof of their Moderation , is their preparation of minde to beleeve & practice what ever the Catholike Church even of this present age doth universally beleeve & practice . Proofs should be visible & known ; and he brings us here for a proof a thing hid in the dark hole of their own breasts , nor ever likely to come to light but by their own sayings onely ; all other Symptoms standing in opposition to it . But the greatest foolery is , that , as I told him , they first say there is no universall Church ; or , if any , indeterminate , so that no body can tell which it is , and then make a hollow-hearted profession of a readines to beleeve it , and conclude themselves moderate Reformers . My Ld replies that then they have renounced their creed the badge of their Christianitie . I answer , we doubt not but they have ; and that , as they hold onely the word Church and not the thing , so they hold onely the word , the creed , and not the sence of it both in that and what other Articles their fancie pleases . Is it not then wisely argued , to think to confute us by bringing us to this absurditie ( as he imagins ) that then they have renounced their creed ; whereas 't is our known tenet , which we hold as undoubtedly as we do that they are out of the Church . The next absurditie he brings me to upon this account , is , that then they have renounc't their reason also . As little can we doubt of this as of the former , having seen lately how you deny'd the first Principles and common sense almost in every particular of this discourse ; and , even this present maner of arguing testifies how little reason your bad cause will allow you the use of . But how proves he that then they must have lost their reason ? Thus ; for , if there be many particular Churches wherefore not one universall Church , whereof Christ is the Head and King. Very good , my Ld , but if you give us no certain Rule to know what congregations are to be truly accounted Churches and which not such , but hereticall , and show us no some common ty of ordinary Government in the Church , how will you make up of them one universall Church , which may bee known for such ? This is the thing we object ( as you well know ) that you give us no such Rule to know a true Church by ; This is the reason why we affirm you deny an universall Church , because you deny all Grounds which can establish such a Church . As for what I alledged that if they say there is a Catholike Church 't is indetermin'd , that is none knows which it is ; He answers , first , that then 't is all one as if it were not . Very true , for if there be no determinate one , there is none at least to us . Next , that this is a calumny , to say they know not determinately which this Church is . Let us examine whether it be or no. Two things are requisite to the notion of an universall or Catholike Church . One , that the particular companies , which compound it , be indeed true Churches ; that is , consisting of true beleevers , and not hereticall Congregations ; without certain knowledge of which none can possibly know which is the universall Church , made up of them ; The other that these particular Congregations of true beleevers cling together , by mean's of order , into one entire company , to be called , when thus united , one universall Church . For the first , I appeal to any candid & learned Protestant , whether he ever in his life knew any of their Authors who gives us a positive Catalogue of which particular Congregations are to he held for true Churches and a part of the universall ; which no , but to be excluded from it as hereticall : or whether himself can stand to it positively upon Grounds given & agreed upon by them , that such & such a Congregation is without the verge of the universall Church , such with in it . My self have lived in circumstances to be aswell acquainted with their doctrine as most men are ; and I profess sincerely were my life at stake & onely redeemable by the resolving this question , I could not determin absolutely upon any Grounds constantly acknowledg'd by them , whether Presbyterians , Anabaptists , or Quakers are to be excluded from the universall Church , or no. And if we cannot determin of sects so neer at hand , though prest to it by our conversation & carriage to declare & express our selves distinctively , much lesse can we expect it in order to the Armenians , Ethiopians , Iacobites , with whose customes and tenets we are so litle acquainted But alas ! how vain is it to expect from Protestants such a distinctivenes of true beleevers from false , who have no Grounds to make such a distinction . For what Principles have they to character a true beleever ? Is it to acknowledge the letter of the Scripture sufficient ? All Hereticks in the world almost own this ; Arians & Socinians who deny Christ's divinity most of all . Is it the true sence of it ? how shall they agree in this without some certain mean's or Rule to interpret it & make them agree . Must the common doctrine of the universall Church interpret it ? This is the very thing we are in quest of , and ( till wee know what particular Congregations are to bee held true Churches ) know not yet which it is . Must consent of fathers ? They have no Authority but from the Church in which they lived , and as declarers of her doctrine ; unles therefore we have some Rule to conclude antecedently , that the Church whose doctrine they taught was the true Church , we are still ignorant whether they be true fathers and to be beleeved , or no. Is it the private Spirit ? The most frantick Enthusiasts then have an equall pretence ? Is it private reason ? In steps the Socinian , and indeed all heresies in the world , for every one hath a private reason of his own , and can use it to his power in interpreting Scripture . But my L d of Derry seems to drive another way , affirming here p. 43. that he knows no other necessary Articles of faith but the Apostles creed , though other Protestant Authors affirm more . This then according to him must be the fundamentall Rule of faith and the Touch stone to try who are true beleevers , who not . The Puritans therefore who deny'd one of those Articles , to wit Ghrists descent into Hell , must be excluded quite from the universall Church ; yet we see Protestants communicate with them aswell nay more than with Anabaptists , nor are they look't upon with a different eye from the other sects , or as more separated from the Church than the rest . Again , as Puritans are excluded by this Principle , so all that reject any thing but these twelve Articles are admitted by it , as part of God's Church . Hence it follows that though any sect deny the Government of the Church by King , by Bishops , by Pope , by Patriarch , by Lay-elders , by private Ministers , nay all Government , the Procession of the holy Ghost , all the Sacraments , nay all the whole Scripture , except what interferes with those twelve points , are members of God's Church . Reader , canst thou imagin a greater blasphemy ? Again , when he says the Apostle's creed is onely necessary and fundamentall , he either mean's the words of the Apostles creed onely , or the sence & meaning of it . If the former , the Socinians and Arians hold it , whom yet I conceive he thinks no part of God's Church . If the latter , either the Protestants or we must be excluded ( contrary to his tenet ) from the universall Church ; for since points of faith are sence , and we take two Articles , to wit , that of Christ's descending into Hell & that of the Catholike Church , in a different sence , it follows that we have different points of our creed , or different creeds ; and therefore either we or they must fundamentally err and be none of the universall Church . Where then is this determinate universall Church , or how shall we finde it by the Protestants Principles , no certain mean's being left to determin which Congregations are worthy to be call'd particular Churches and so fit to compound that universall ; which not , & to be excluded from her . For the second point ; in case there were many particular Churches , yet an universall signifies one universall , every universality involving an Vnity ; and so , they must have some ty to vnite them , according to the natures of those particulars : Now those particulars consist of men governable according to Christ's law ; and so the whole must be a body united by order and Government , for things of the same species or kinde cannot be otherwise exteriorly united . But I have already shown ( in the foregoing Section ) that the Protestants Grounds have left no such order & subordination of universall Government in God's Church ; therefore no universall Christian Common-wealth , that is , no universall Church . To show then this determinate universall Church being the proper answer for the Bishop let me see how he be haves himself in this point . First , he toyes it childishly , telling us that the Protestants acknowledge not indeed a virtuall Church , that is one man who is as infallible as the universall Church . I answer nor wee neither : Ere he calumniates the Church with any such pretended tenets , let him show out of her decrees they were hers , otherwise if he will dispute against private men , let him quote his Authors & fall to work . Secondly , he tells us they acknowledge a Representative Church , that is a generall Councill : with signifies nothing , unles they first determing certainly who are good Christians and fitt to vote there , who Hereticks & so vnfit ; that is , till they show what Congregations are truly to be called Churches ; and what Church , made up of such and such , is to be esteemed universall ; otherwise , how can a Representative of the universall Church , which is a relative word , be understood to be such , unles it be first known which is the universall Church it ought to represent . Thirdly , he tells us they acknowledge an Essentiall Church . I marry , now we come to the point . Expect now , Reader , a determinate universall Church , so particularly character'd that thou canst not fail to acknowledge it . The Essentiall Church , that is ( saith he ) the multitude or multitudes of beleevers . His [ that is ] seem'd to promise us some determinate mark of this Church ; and he onely varies the phrase into [ beleevers ] a word equally obscure as the former , equally questionable , nay the self same question . For 't is all one to ask which is a Congregation of right beleevers , as to ask which is a true Church . But this is his vsuall and even thrid bare trick , with which Mountebanklike he deludes his Readers , and is too much inveterate in his manner of writing ever to hope to wean him of it . They can do no more than shuffle about in Generall terms & hold still to indeterminate , confused , & universall expressions , who have no Grounds to carry home to particular things . He concludes with telling his Reader that we are in five or six severall opinions what Catholike Church is into which we make the last resolution of our faith . Whither away my Lord ? The question at present is not about the resolution of faith , nor about the formall definition of a Church . but about what visible materiall persons & countries make up the Church . That you cannot pitch upon these in particular I have already shown ; that we can , is as visible as the sun at noon day ; to wit those countries in Communion with the See of Rome . These and no other are to us parts of the uniuersall Church . Every ordinary fellow of your or our side can tell you what these are ; 't is as easie to do it , as to know which is a Papist-Country ( as you call it ) which not : And , even in those places where they live mixt with others , as in England , they are distingvishable from others by most visible Marks . Our Rule to distinguish our flock from Stragglers , is the acknowledgment of immediate Tradition for the Rule & Root of faith ; and of the present Government of our Church under S. Peter's successor ; who so ever renounced this Government , or differ'd from us in any other point recommended by that Rule , at the same time and in the same act , renounced the said ever constantly certain Rule ( and , by renouncing it , their being of the Church ; ) as did your selves confessedly in the reign of King Henry the 8th and the Greeks with all out casts for those points in which they differ from us . To this all Catholikes agree , what ever school men dispute about the Resolution of faith . Show us a Church thus pointed out visibly , and such evident & manifest Grounds why just so many and more can be of it , or els confess you have lost the notion of an universall Church , nor hold or know any . Sect. 8. Nine or ten self contradictions in one Section . How hee clears our Religion and condemns his own . The Incoherence of the former Protestans blody laws with their own Principles . How hee steals by false pretence from showing a visiblety of Vnity in the Church , to invisible holes . The reason why the succession into S. Peter's dignity should continue to the Bp. of Rome Plentifull variety of follies , non-sence and quibbling mistakes . The sleight account hee gives of the order Brother hood and fundamentalls of his Church . HIs 8th Section presents us with his fifth Ground to iustify their separation ; and 't is this that the King and Church of England did no more than all other Princes & Republikes of the Roman Communion have done in effect . This word [ in effect ] deserves a Comment ; and then , if it bee candidly explicated , we shall finde it ●ignifies the whole busines , though it seeme to speak coyly & mincingly . Did they ever make laws to renounce and abrogate the Popes Authority , and define absolutely against essentiall right ? Did they ever erect an Ecclesiasticall Superior ( as you did the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury ) and pretend that he was in no manner of way subordinate to the Pope , but vtterly independent on him ? Did any of them ever separate from the Church by disacknowledging his Head ship , and by consequence the Rule of faith , immediate Tradition , which asserted it ? Not one : Did not your self in your vindication p. 184. after your had put down the parallell acts of Henry the 8th to other Princes , when you came to the point confess that Henry the 8th abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions , but the Emperors ( with whom you run along with your parallel in other points ) did not so . Did not your self here p. 37. where you put downe a gradation of the oppositions of the former Kings to the Pope tell us onely , as the highest step of it , that they threaned him further to make a Wall of separation between him & them . If then they but threaned to do what K. H. ( as appears by this law which vtterly renounces the Pope ) did , it follows plainly that they did nothing , and King Henry did all , as farr as concerns our Controversy ; which is not about extent of his Authority , or in what cases he may be check't from exercising particular Acts of that Authority , but about the denying the very Right it self , and ( which is consequent ) by denying joyintly the Rule of faith , and by those denialls separating from the Body of the former Church , which held both . The signification then of this iuggling phrase in effect ( as apply'd to our purpose ) by his own interpretation , is this ; that other Catholike countries did just nothing , and King Henry the 8th did all . To no imaginable purpose then save onely to show his diligence in nothing the politicall wranglings between Kings and Popes , are all the instances produced by the Bishop that Catholike Kings in such & such particular cases permitted not the Pope to execute what he intended , unles he can deny his own words and prove that they did as much as K. Henry and not threaned onely . But my Ld of Derry having taken a great deal of pains to gather together these notes , which ( the way being new ) he made account would come of bravely , grows much perplex't to see them all defeated at once by showing plainly that they are nothing to the purpose , and therefore both heretofore and especially at present complains much that we answer them not in particular , assuring the Reader , that would our cause have born it , we had done so . Was ever man so ignorant of the common laws of disputing ? Needs any mory answer be given to particulars which one yeelds to , than to say he grants them ? We grant therefore all his particular instances of these contess between Kings & Popes , and yeeld willingly that such & such materiall facts happen'd & many more ; not entring into that dispute how far they were done iustly , how far un iustly , which is little to our purpose , since the Authority it self was still acknowledg'd on both sides . What need we answer each in particular , by saying , first I grant this , next I grant the other . Now the use or application he makes of them , that is , to pretend thence that they did as much as King Henry the 8th , so to iustify him , is a particular point and , one ; and to this I have answer'd particularly , both here and also in my third Section , where I have demonstrated it to be the most shameles & manifoldly contradictory absurdity , that ever bid defiance to the universall acknowledgment and ey-verdict of the whole word . Vpon occasion of his alledging that all Catholike countries do the same in effect against the Pope as the Protestants , I raised an exception of his incoherent manner of writing ; To which he thus replies p. 45. But what is the Ground of his exception ? nothing but a contradiction . As if he made account that a contradiction is a matter of nothing , nor worth excepting against . His contradiction is this , that our doctrine concerning the Pope is injurious to Princes & prejudices their crowns , and yet that we hold & do the same against the Pope in effect as Protestants do . He would salve the contradiction , first , by alledging that Papists may be injurious to Princes in one respect & one time , and do them right in another respect and another time . Well , my Lord ; but , since the doctrine of the Papists concerning the substance of the Pope's Authority is ever constantly the same ( for none can be Papists longer then they hold it ) it knows no varitie of respectt not times , and so if it be prejudiciall in it self once 't is prejudiciall alwayes . The extent of it varies upon occasions : this consists in an indivisible & cannot alter . This substance of his Authority , is the point which belongs to you to impugn , if you go to work consequently , since you are onely accused of Schism for rejecting this , not for hindring him from acting in particular cases . Either grant then that this tenet is not pre●udiciall to Princes , being like yours , and then you contradict your former pretence , that it was ; or say that yours is prejudiciall to Princes also , being the same in effect with it ; and then you have evaded indeed a contradiction , but by as great an absurdity . Secondly , to show his former answer was nothing worth , he alledges that I have changed the subject of the Proposition , and that he spoke not of Papists , but of the Pope & Court of Rome ; No Ld , but I would not let you change the subject of the whole question . 'T is a separation from all the Churches in Communion with Rome that you stand accused of ; the undeniable fact evidences that you have broke from all those Churches by renouncing those two said Principles of Vnity in which they agree . This is our accusation against you , and so your excuses must be apply'd to this or else they are no excuses at all . Now one of your excuses is that the Pope's Authority is prejudiciall to Princes ; and it must be mean't of the Pope's Authority as held universally by all those Churches , else why did you separate from all those Churches upon that pretence . But those Churches universally ( as you say ) hold the same in effect with the Protestants ( for you say you separated from the Court onely : ) what needed them excuses from you to them , unles there had been a contradiction in the busines . Had you opposed onely some attempts of the Court of Rome by your tenet , you might have remain'd still united with France , Spain , &c who did ( as you confess ) the same in effect ; but 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 , and the exercisers of them punish't as Traitors meerly upon this Score because they performed such acts . That this was the case , is evidenced most manifestly out of the laws themselves every where extant ; which make it treason and death to hear a Confession , or to offer up the unbloody Sacrifice of our Saviours Body , &c. and out of their own remitting this strange treason at the very last gasp , nay rewarding the persons osten , if they would renounce their tenets & accompany them to their Churches . These are our manifest and undeniable proofs : what arguments does hee hring to blinde the Evidences ? nothing but obscure conceits to be look't for in mens breasts , pretended fears & ielousies that all who exercised such acts of Religion were Traitors , & meant to kill and slay the Governors , or at most some particular attemps of private persons , either true or counterfeited ; if some were true , it was , no wonder that such hert burnings & passions should happen , where people were violently forced to renounce the faith they had so zealously embraced & were bred & brought up in ; and per adventure no Protestant party living under Catholikes but have had the same or greater examples of the like attempts . Yet I excuse not those who attempted any thing against Government , nor accuse the Governors for treating them as they deserved : onely that the faults of some should be so unreasonably reflected upon all , nay upon Religion it self , as to make the formality of guilt consist in the performing such acts of Religion , was most senceles , malicious , nay self condemning , since their own Profession admits the hearning a Confession to be a lawfull act of Religion , and you would yet willingly hear them , if the people were not wiser then to go to such sleightly authoriz'd Ghostly fathers . Nor do I apprehend that you would think your selves very well dealt with if the present Government because of some ●isings of some of your party against them , which they know to have been back't , promoted , & fomented by some of your Lay Clergy , should there upon presently make laws to hang as Traitors every one of the said Clergy , whom they found either hearning a Confession or speaking of the Church Government by Bishops ; a point as much condemn'd by the present Government as any of our tenets was by Queen Elizabeth . If then you would think this very hard dealing , acknowledge others comparatively moderate , and your selves to have been most unreasonably cruell . In his p. 48. if hee mean as hee sayes , hee clears our Religion from destroying subjection to Princes , I subsume ; But , the Supremacy of the Pope is to us a point of faith , that is a point of Religion , therefore the holding the said Supremacy , is according to him ( if hee means honestly , that is , as hee speaks ) no wayes injurious to Princes . If any extent of this power , pretended to bee beyond it's just limits , hath been introduced by Canon-Lawyers or others , let him wrangle with them about it ; our Religion and Rule of faith owns no such things , as is evident by the universality of Catholike Doctors declaring in particular cases against the Pope , when it is necessary , as the Lawyers in England did against the King , without prejudice to their Allegiance ; which I hope characters those Doctors in his eye to bee good sujects to their Governors . Yet he is sorry to have done us this favour , or to stand to his own words , even when they signify onely Courtesy . Hee alledges therefore that these instances cited by him ( of Catholikes disobeying the Pope in behalf of Kings , ) were before these poysonous opinions were hatched , and so they do not prove that all Roman Catholikes at this time are loyall subjets . Yet himself in his vindication p. 194. ( so naturall is self contradiction to him ) told us of as violent acts done against the Pope in Cardinall Richlieu's dayes ; in Portugall very lately , and in a maner the other day , in which also the Portugeses were abetted by a Synod of French Bishops in the year one thousand six hundred fi●ty one , who were positive & very round with the Pope in their behalf . These were some of his instances in this very seventh Chapter ; which now ( a badd memory and self contradiction is ever a certain curse to falshood ) hee tells us were before our seditions , opinions were hatched . Now what seditious opinions have been hatched or can bee pretended to have been hatched within this five years , I dare say hee is ignorant : And , lest you should think I wrong him , you shall hear him contradict himself yet once-more ( so fully does hee satisfy his Reader on all sides ) & affirm here p. 49. that hee hopes that those seditio●s doctrines at this day are almost buried . So that spell the Bishop's words together , and they sound thus much , that those pretended seditious doctrines had their birth & buriall both at once , and were entomb'd in their shell ; that is , were never hatch't at all : So cruelly if you but confront the two faces of the same Ianus does hee fall together by the ears with himself , baffle & break his self divided head , & with one splay leg trip up the other . After this , hee presents the Reader with a plat from of the Church fancied by mee , as hee sayes ; for which greevous fault he reprehends mee ironically , telling mee that 't is pitty I had not been one of Christ's Councellors when hee form'd his Church ; that I am sawcy with Christ , what not ? Now I never apprehended Christ had any Councellors at all when he first form'd his Church , till the Bishop told mee hee had , & wish't I had been one of them ; or fancied any thing at all , unles hee will say that what Catholikes received from their forefathers and what with their eyes wee see left in the Church still , is onely the work of my fancy : which is non-sence ; for I onely took what was delivered , as of faith , by immediate Tradition , to wit that S. Peter was constituted by Christ Prince of his Apostles , and that the Pope was his Successor into that Office ; and then show'd the admirable conveniencies , the moderation , the necessity of that form of Government , how innocent if taken in it's due limits ( as held out to us by the Rule of faith ) to temporall Government , nay how beneficiall to the same , how absolutely necessary for and perfectly concerning the Vnity in the Church ; how impossible the said Vnity is without it , &c. which , if it bee Saucines , hee may with the same reason accuse all divinity of Saucines which takes what faith hath delivered , for example that Christ was Incarnate , & thence proceeds to show the conveniency , necessity , &c. of the Incarnation ; But the poor Bp. who has busied all his life in not in quaint concieted stories & odd ends of Testimonies , never had leisure to reflect , that this is the method which Science takes when it proceeds a posteriori ; first building upon what it finds to have been done , by experience or other Grounds , and thence proceeding to finde out the causes why or by which such things were done . In Answer , the Bishop pretends first that hee will take my frame in peeces ; whereas hee not so much as handles it , or looks upon it ; formine concern'd a Visible ty of Church Vnity , his discourse reckons up out of S. Paul seven particulars , all which ( except onely the common Sacrament of Baptism ) are invisible & latent , & some of them no wayes proper to a Church . The first is , one Body . Well leap't again , my L d , you are to prove first we are one Body , if the Vnity of Government ( conseru'd by all those who acknowledge the Popes Head ship ) be taken away by you ; but you suppose this , and then ask what can be more prodigious then for the members of the same Body to war with one another ? wee were inded once one Body , and as long as the mēbers remain'd worthy of that Body there was no warr between them : But , as when some member becomes corrupted , the rest of the members if they do wisely , take order to cut it of , lest it infect the rest , so 't was no prodigy but reason that the members of the former Church should excommunicate or cut you of , when you would needs be infected , and obstinacy had made you incurable : nay when you would needs be no longer of that Body . The former Body was One by having a visible Head , common nerves & Ligatures of Government & Discipline united in that Head ; the life●giving Blood of faith , essentiall to the faithfull as faith●full , derived to those members by the common Channells or veins of immediate Tradition : You separated from that Head , you broke a●sunder those nerves of Government , you stop't●up and interrupted those Channells or veins the onely passage for divine beleef ( that is certainty grounded faith ) your task then is to show us by visible tokens , that is , by common exterior ties , that you are one Body with us still , not to suppose it , and talk a line or two sleightly upon that groundles supposition . Secondly , one Spirit ; that is the Holy Ghost which hee rightly styles , the common soul of the Church . But his Lp must prove first that they are of the Body of the Church , ere they can claim to be informed by the Soul of it . It is not enough to talk of the Spirit , which is latent & invisible ; & Quaker or Adamite can pretend that at pleasure ; but you must show us visible Marks that you are of that Body , and so capable to have the same Spirit or Soul ; otherwise how will you convince to the world that you have right to that Spirit . Thirdly , one hope of our calling . This token is both invisible again ; and besides makes all to be of one Church ; Iews & all , if they but say tthey hope to go to Heaven ; & who will stick to say that ? Fourthly , one Lord ; in order to which hee tells us wee must be friends , because wee serve the same Lord Dark again ! How shall wee know they serve the same Lord ? Because they cry Lord , Lord ? or because they call him Lord ? Their visible acts must decide that . If then wee see with our eyes that they have broke in peeces his Church , & renounced the only-certain Grounds of his law , they must eithers how us better Symptoms of their service and restore both to their former integrity by reacknowledging them ; else wee can not account them fellow servants to this Lord , but Rebells & enemies against this Lord & his Church . Fifthly one faith . But how they should have one faith with us , who differ from us in the onely certain , that is ▪ in the onely Rule of faith ; as also in the sence , that is , in the thing or tenet of some Articles in the creed ; or , indeed , how they can have faith at all but opinion onely , whose best Authors & writers confess they have no more than probability to Ground their faith , hee knows not ▪ & so sayes nothing ; and therefore is not to be beleeu'd for barely saying wee have one faith . Sixthly , one Baptism . As if Hereticks who are out of the Church could not all be baptised But hee tells us that by Baptism wee fight vnder the same Standard . That wee should do so because of Baptism I grant indeed ; But , as hee who wears the colours of his Generall , & yet deserts his Army & fights against it , will find his colours or Badgeso far from excusing him , that they render him more liable to the rigour of Martiall law & treatable as a greater enemy ; so the badge of Christianity received in Baptism , is so far from being a plea for them who are out of the Church or for making them esteemed one of Christ's and hers , if they run away from her & take party against her , that it much more hainously enhances their accusation , and condemns you whom the undeniable matter of fact joyn'd with your acknowledgment of ours for a true Church manifests most evidently to have done both . Lastly , one God who is father of all , &c. By which if it be mean't that God is a father by Creation or ordinary Providence , them Iews , Pagans , & Atheists are of God's Church too ; if in the sence as God is fathers of Christians , you must first prove that you have his Church on earth for your Mother , ere you can claim God in Heaven for your father . But , to shew how weak a writer this Bp. is let the Reader peruse here my p. 324. & 326. and hee shall see our charges is that without this Government , they have no common ty under that notion to vnite them into one Christian common wealth ; and therefore , that having rejected that Government , unles they can show us what other visible ty they have substituted to that , they cannot be shown to be Christians or of Christ's flock , but separates & Aliens from it . Wee deny them to be truly-nam'd Christians for want of such a visible ty ; now the Bishop , instead of showing us this , supposes all hee was to prove ; towit that they are of Christ's Church , and reckons up some invisible motives proposed by S. Paul , to Christians already acknowledg'd for such , to vnite them , not into one Church ▪ ( for that was presupposed ) but into one harmony of affections . There is no doubt then , but all the seven points alledged are strong motives to vnite Christians in Wills ; but it is as undoubted on the other side that none of them onely pretended , ( and being invisible they can be but pretended ) is a sufficient Mark to know who is a true Christian , who not : nor was this S. Paul's intent as appears by the quality of the persons hee writes to , who were all Christians . Now Christians being such because of their faith , it followes that the Vnity in faith is the property to Christians as such , and consequently in Government ( which , by reason of it's concernment , ought in all reason to bee a point of faith ) & not in charity onely , for this extends it self to Infidells & all the world . Since then , the Bp. goes not about to show visibly their Ground for vnity of faith , that is , a common Rule of faith to his fellows and the rest , nor yet a common Government which may show them visibly , & to us , to be of the Church , and on the other side stands indited by undeniable matter of fact to have rejected those points which were & are visibly such to the Church they broke from , 't is no lesse evident that hee hath not said a word to the purpose but stole it away ( as his custome is ) from the open field of the plain charge to invisible holes . In a word those proposalls of S. Paul are motives why Christians should be united in Wills , and also why those who are not Christians should be of the Church , and Christian common wealth , not the proper ties which make them of it ; for these must be visible , remarkable & known , as are de facto , our form of Government , our Rule of faith . The frame then of the Church , as put by me , was thus visible ; the joynts of it recounted by the Bp. out of S. Paul invisible ; yet the sincere man pretends here when hee brings these invisible points to take my frame in peeces ; & to look upon it in parcells . Which is to prevaricate from the whole Question , and , instead of answering , to abuse & wrong his Adversary . Secondly , hee sayes hee will not dispute whether Christ did give S. Peter a Principality among the Apostles , so wee will be content with a Principality of order ; and hee wishes I had exprest my self more clearly whether I bee for a beginning of order & Vnity , or for a single Head of power & Iurisdiction . I answer , I contende for no such singular Head ship of power , that no Bishop in the Church hath power but hee ; for this is known to bee the Heresy which S. Gregory did so stoutly impugn when hee writ against Iohn of Constantinople ; A Principality or Primacy of order I like well ; provided this order signify not , as the Bp. would have it a dry order which can do nothing ; but such an order as can act & do something , according to it's degree & rank ; as the word order imports , if taken in the Ecclesiasticall sence ; and as it is taken when it is appl●'d to the Hierarchy , as for example to P●triarch● ▪ Primates , Arch Bishops , Bishops , &c. Which ought to bee the proper sence of it in our Controversy , it being about an Ecclesiasticall preeminence . As for what hee tells us that the Principality of power resi●es now in a generall Council , besides other faults already noted , it falters in this , that generall Councils are extraordinary Iudicatures , and never likely to happen in the sence you take a generall Council . But , our Question is , whether the nature of Government require not some ordinary standing , Supremacy of power ever ready to over look the publike concerns , to promote the interests & conserve the peace of the Christian Commonwealth , by subordination to whom all the faithfull remain united in the notion of Governed ; If this bee necessary , as plain reason avouches , then wee ask where you have lest this standing ordinary Principality of power , since you have renounc't the Pope's Supremacy ? Thirdly I added , and consequently to his Successors . This consequence exprest in generall terms , hee tells us , hee likes well enough , and that such an head-shippe ought to continue in the Church ; but hee cannot digest it that such an Head ship should bee devolued to the Bp. of Rome : yet , what other Successor S. Peter had that could bee properly call'd such , ( that is such a one who succeeded him dying ) except the Bp. of Rome , himself will never attempt to show us . This consequence then of ours , applying in the Principality of S. Peter's to the Bishop of Rome ) which hee calls a rope of sand ) hangs together thus , that whensoever Christ conferrs any power to any single person to be continued for the future good of the Church , and has taken no further order for it's continuance hee is deem'd likewise to have conferd it upon those to whom according to the order of nature it is to come . Now the naturall order requires that offices & dignities should be devolu'd to those who succeed those persons dying who were vested with them , in case there bee no other ordinary & convenient mean● instituted to elect or transfer it to another . That Christ lest any such institute that his Church should continue this dignity by election , or traverse the common method of succession , wee never read ; but on the contrary wee fide de facto that the Bishops of Rome in the Primitive Church enjoy'd a Principality by succession , & not by nomination of the Catholike Church ; nor is it convenient but extremely preter naturall , that this Principality being of perpetuall necessity ( as hee grants ) the Church should remain without it at the death of every Pope , till all the Churches in Iapan , China , India , or where ever remotely disperst in all parts of the habitable world , should bee ask't & give their consent whether the Bishop of Rome should still continue with this Principality , or no. No other means then being layd or lest to cross this way of succession , as appears by common sence and the practice of the Church , it follows that this naturall order must take place , and so the particular dignity of S. Peter remain to those who succeeded him dying in his see of Rome . His Argument then which hee pretends parallell to mine , that such a Bishop of such a see died Lord C●ancellor of England , therefore all succeeding Bishops of the same see must succeed him likewise in the Chancellor ship of England , comes nothing home to my case ; for here is a supreme standing Magistrate , to elect another & traverse succession ; the transfering that charge is easily & conveniently performable ; here are positive laws & institutes made known & accepted that a King should do this ; But , put case that there were none of all these means of electing a new person , on foot in the world , and that the Chancellor ship were to be perpetuated , there would bee no doubt in that case but the naturall order would take place there also , and the Successors of that Bishop would succeed also into the Chancellor ship . Christ left ( hee tells us ) the cheif managing of his family to his spouse , that is , the Church . Pretty sence ! signifying thus much that the Church or universality of ●hristians must govern themselves , & have no cheif Governour at all ; Is it not rare that the Bishop should think Christ's family , and his Spouse or Church are two distinct things ! What hee adds , that hee lest it not to any single servant further then as subservient to his spouse ; is very true ; and all Governours in the world are or ought to bee subservient to the common good of the governed , as even the Angells are Spiritus administratorij , yet no more can the subjects command their Governours , than wee can command Angells . And so the chief Church , & her Bishop the chief Governour of Christ's family are for the good of the Church , thouh over the Church ; however my L d who looks into the sounds of words & not the meaning of them , enflames the expressions , & improves them to flanting & proud sence . Hee tells us that Rome may bee destroyed with an Earthquake ; I answer it must be an unheard of Earthquake which can swallow up the whole Diocese ; for , if the City onely run that hazard , the Clergy of the Roman Diocese yet remain who can elect to themselves a new Bishop ; And no harm will succed to our cause . Next , hee sayes , it may become hereticall or Mahumetan ? True , so may the whole Church if it had pleased God so to order causes . But that it pleases him not wee have this strong presumption , that the good of his Church , so much concern'd in the perpetuity of this succession ( as hath been shown ) will crave his perpetuall assistance to that see . Wee have also for pledge of this perpetuity the experience of his gratious conservation of it for sixteen hundred years , & the establishment of it at present , not giving us the least Ground to think it's ruine likely . If his Lp do , and that this trouble him , at least let him yeeld his obedience till that happens , and then preach liberty from Rome's Iurisdiction to those that shall live in that age . What hee addes concerning the Churches disposing of her offices is meer folly : Himself granted in the foregoing page that Christ himself ( & not the Church ) instituted this Principality ; let him them show first that the Church hath Authority to change Christ's Institutes , ere he thus frankly presume it left to the Churches disposall . Next , hee tells us that betweene Tyranny & Anarchy there is Aristocracy which was the ancient regiment of the Christian Church . Wee blame them not for renouncing any one sort of Government but all Government in the Church ; and alledge that there is no Kinde of Government which actually vnite ? God's Church in one but this of the Pope's Headship . An Aristocracy signifies a Government by some cheif persons , who sitt either constantly or else often , & easily meet that the difficulties occurring in the ordinary Government of the Cōmonwealth may bee settled by them . Was this the ordinary Government of the Primitive Church ? Had they any generall Council ( which the Bishop means by Aristocracy , as appears by his p. 56. l. vlt. till Constantine's time ? Nay have wee had any this six handred years or indeed eight hundred last past which they will acknowledge to bee such ! or , shall wee have any for the future ? they tell us not till towards the end of the world , and that even then 't is but probable neither ( See D r H. Reply p. 30. ) His position then comes to this , that Aristocracy in a generall Councill being the Ecclesiasticall H●ad ( p. 56. l. vlt. ) or the Government which vnites God's Church , the said Church had no Head nor Government at all till Constantine's time ; none betweene Council & Council afterwards ; none at all again this six or seven hundred years past ; and lastly perhaps shall have none at all for the future . Farewell Church Government , and many thanks to my good L d of Derry & D r. H d. But I most wonder that a man of his Principles could finde no middle sort of Government between Tyranny & Anarchy but Aristocracy ; Is Monarchy with him none at all , or none of the best , which even now hee told us was of divine Institution ? You good people who depend so zealously of this new Prelacy , observe how your Dooctrs have either a very short memory to inform you right , or a very strong will to cheat you into the wrong . Heed adds , that a Primacy of order is more sufficient in this case to prevent dangers and procure advantages to the Church than a Supremacy of power . Which signifies thus much directly in other terms , that hee who hath no power to act at all in order to the universall Church or as a first , hath power to procure her more good , & prevent more harms towards her , that is , hath power to act better for that Church , than hee , who has power to act , hath . And thus my friend here feasts his Readers with contradictions , his whole discourse being such in it's self & wants onely to bee put into something more immediate terms of the same signification . After I had put down the necessity & yet moderatenes of the Pope's Authority as held of faith by us , I added , that this was the bridle our Saviour put in the mouth of his Church , to wield it sweetly which way hee pleased . My Bp. replies that I make the Church to bee the Beast and the Pope's office to ride upon the Church . No , my Lord , I styl'd the Pope's office , the Bridle ; do bridles use to ride upon horses ? or did your Lp ever meet a bridle on horsback ? I see the Bishop is a better Bowler then hee is an Hors-man . Next , hee tells us that our Saviour put his bridle not into the mouth but hand of his Church . Good my L d inform us ( for you chop your Logick so snall & are grown so mysteriously acute that without a revelation none can understand you ) when the Church holds the bridle in her hand , as you say , whom does she govern by that bridle ? Do the whole multitude of beleevers hold the bridle & govern themselves ? Then there are no Governors at all , o●at least none distinct from the governed , which is all one . Or , do some Governors onely hold the bridle & weild by it the multitude of beleevers ? then returns his Lp's cavill & buffets himself , that then the Church is the Beast ( as hee irreverently wantons it ) and those Governors ride upon the Beast , and the bridle gets into the Mouth of the Church again , for as Governors are said to hold the reins or bridle , so , if wee will prosecute the metaphor into an Allegory , the Governed must be said to have it in their Mouths , that is to be ruled & guided by it . So unfortunate is his Lp that hee can neither approve himself a good Controvertist , nor a tolerable guibbler ; but , while hee pretends to be solid in the former , he still runs into contradictions ; when witty in the latter hee rambles into absurdities ; and , in either performance , his own both Arguments & Quips light upon his own head . I represented the advantages & cōveniences this Headship brought to the world when duly observed by good Pope's . Hee replies that I write dreaming as Plato did , and look upon men not as they are but as they ought to bee . This mistake is of the same strain , onely something more voluntary . I look not my Lord upon men at all in this place , but speak of the Office it self ; how admirabily convenient it is if rightly performed . What men do , or how they execute it , whether well or ill concerns not a Controvertist no● mee ; the point or tenet concerns mee . The personall managing this office is not of faith , and belongs not to mee but to Historians & Lawyers to talk of ; the Office it self is of faith , fals under the sphere of Controversy & is my task to defendit . What say you to the Office it self , as put down here by mee . Return my L d whence you stray'd ; and tell us , is not the Office it self thus moderately yet substantially exprest naturally conducing to the peace , Vnity , Faith , Discipline , & other universall conveniencies of Christendome ? or is it , though thus advantageous to the whole Church , to be rejected because of the abuses of particular persons ? These are the points between us ; what say you to these ? why , in the next parag . hee would have us look upon the case without an if or as a Pope should bee ; no my Lord , I ought not in reason to quit that method ; you & I are not disputing about mens lives , but the Catholike tenet and whether the very tenet bee advantageous to the Church or not . If wee leave this wee leave the whole Question . Yet wee must leave the Question , else my Lord will not proceed nor dispute ; telling us that if wee look upon the case without an if , or , as the Pope should bee ( that is indeed if wee look not upon the case ) then wee shall finde the Papacy as it is settled or would have been ( sayes hee ) the cause of Schisms , Ecclesiasticall dissentions , war amongst Princes , &c. Where first , if nothing follows out of my words but this disiunctive ( as it is settled , or would have been ) then it remains for any thing hee expresses , that , as it is settled , it is not apt to cause any of these inconveniences ; but onely would have been , in case some vicious attemptors had had the power to corrupt that which was actually well in the Church . Next , if hee speak of the Papacy , as it is settled , hee must look upon it as held by the Rule of faith and acknowledg'd by all Romane Catholikes ; otherwise if hee considers it according to what is disputable & wrangled about between Catholike & Catholike , hee considers it not as settled , for this is to bee not setled : nor indeed is this to speak of the Papacy it self ( about which Catholikes have no debates ) but of the extent of it . Now , let him either evince that Papacy as settled or held universally by all Catholikes , is in it's own nature the cause of Schisms , dissentions , Warrs , &c. Or grant that 't is not such , but the contrary ; as hee does here tacitly , by yeelding that if it were as it should bee it would bee faultles , and presently doubting whether it bee right settled , ( that is , as it should bee ) or no. The substance of the Pope's Authority being stated , I show'd all the Bishop's arrows falling on his own head ; because , not with standing such disputes , it is evident that the nature and notion of one Church is intirely conserved ; the Papacy standing firm in those very Catholike countries , which resisted the Pope , and those countries governing themselves in an Vnity of faith & Sacraments , & correspondence like one Body , as is visible ; whereas their Reform or renouncing the Pope has cut of England from all this Communication or correspondence , and made it no part of one Church greater then it self , but an headles Synagogue without Brother hood or order . Hee replies ; Neither so , nor so . How then , my Lord ? why hee tells us first that the Eastern Southern & Northern Churches admit none higher then the cheifest Patriarch . Well , my L d , are you and they both joyntly under the Government of those Patriarchs , or any other common Government ? If not , how are you then of one community or Brotherhood as Governed ? Next , hee alledges that agreat part of the Westerne Churches have shaken of the Roman Yoke . Grant it were so , and that those Congregations were in reality Churches , ( which wee deny ) yet are you united with those Churches under some common Christian Government , joyning you & them into one Christian Commonwealth ? If not ( as your eyes witnes 't is not ) then how are you their Brothers or of their community ? Show us this visible ty of order uniting you together ; To say you are one or united to them , without showing us this extern ty , is very easy , but convinces nothing . Thirdly , hee tells us that the rest of the Western world which acknowledge the Papacy , do it with very many reservations , cautions , and restrictions . Very good , my Lord ! if they onely restrain'd , they restrain'd something which they admitted , as thus restrain'd ; to wit , the substance of the Pope's Authority . Are you at least united with them ? Alas no : you are disunited from them , by totally renouncing ( and not restraining onely ) that Authority which visibly united them . Where then is your Brother hood ? where is your order ? Fourthly , hee answers , that for order , they are for it as much as wee . That you are for it & desire it ( if your Grounds would let you ( wee doubt not : But have you any such order uniting you visibly to the rest of the Christian world ? To say you are for it , when the Question is whether you have it no , without ever attempting to show us this visible order , signifies you neither have any nor can show any ; or , that you have indeed a feeble wish for it , but not efficacious enough to make you use means to obtain it . Fifthly , hee tells us , that for Christian Brother hood they maintain it three times larger then wee ; But he never goes about to show us any visible ty of Government , uniting them into one Cōmonwealth or Brother hood . 'T is a sufficient proof with him to say they maintain it ; that is , they call more Brothers then wee do ; but , whether they are so indeed or no 't is so evident with him ( though hee knows his own fellows say the contrary , as may bee seen in Rosse's view of Religio●s ) that it needs no proof though it bee all the Question ; Sixthly , as for their being an headles Synagogue , hee replies that they want no head who have Christ a spirituall Head. Wee are demanding a visible common Head or cheif Governmēt of the whole Church common to England with the rest , and hee relates us to Christ in Heaven . Such an Head is God Amighty to all mankind , must they therefore because of this invisible relation become one Cōmonvealth . Again , this latter , towit , whether Christ bee their spirituall Head or no , is invisible & unknown , and is to bee judged by the other thus ; that , if Christ have lest any Vnity of Goverment in his Church and commanded it to bee kept , and they have taken a course to leave no such Vnity , 't is evident that they have rebell'd against Christ as well as his Church , and so falsly pretend to have him for their spirituall Head. Next , hee tells us that they have a generall Council for an Ecclesiasticall Head. Which is to confess that there is no ordinary Vnity of Government in God's Church , but extraordinary onely , when a Council sits , that is , there is none de facto at present , nay morally impossible there should bee any ( as Dr. H. sayes Reply p. 39. ) and 't is a great chance when there is any , perhaps towards the end of the world , as the same Dr. 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 seve●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 do●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 ●oyn mine interest with either party however did I pretēd 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 excl●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 ge●tle hand , assuring us they are nothing but some unvs●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 , b●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 Allego●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 , w●ether hee intends to speak finely or solidly . Our tongues indeed shall not winnow them , as hee says , nor do we pretend , to do so by our tongues , or voluntary talking ( that were to vsurp the method of discourse proper to himself onely ) but our reason will winnow them unles wee turn Beasts & use it not ; our proofs , if they be evident , as our charge of their Schismaticall breach is , will winnow them ; the Rule of faith ( the voice of the Church or immediate Tradition ) will winnow , or rather Christ hath winnow'd them by it , having already told them that if they hear not the Church they are to be esteemed no better than Heathens & Publicans . Since then 't is evident out of the terms that you heard not the Church for your n●w fangled Reformations , nor Ground those tenets upon the voice of the Church , nay according to your Grounds have left no Church , nor common suprem Government in the Church , to hear , it follows that you have indeed winnow'd your selves from amongst the wheat of Christians and are as perfect chaff ( I mean those who have voluntarily broken Church Communion ) as Publicans & Heathens . Now , to show how empty a brag it is that they hold Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee , to omit their no Communion in Government already spoken of Sect. 6. let us see what Communion they have with the Greek Church in tenets ( by the numerosity of which they hope for great advantages ) and whether the Protestants or wee approach nearer them in more points held equally by both . I will collect therefore out of one of their own side , Alexander Ross , the tenets of the present Greek Church , in which they agree with us , though in his manner of expressing our tenet , hee sometimes wrongs us both . The Greeks place ( saith hee ) much of their deuotion in the worship of the Virgin Mary , and of painted Images ; in the intercession , prayers , help and merits of the saints , which they invocate in their Temples . They place Iustification , not in faith , but in works . The sacrifice of the Mass is used for the quick and the dead . They beleeve there is a third place between that of the blessed and the damned , where they remain who deferr'd repentance till the end of their life ; If this place bee not Purgatory ( adds Ross ) I know not what it is nor what the souls do there . ( View of all Religions p. 489. ) And , afterwards p. 490. They beleeve that the souls of the dead are better'd by the prayers of the living . They are no less for the Churches Authority and Traditions than Roman Catholikes bee when the Sacrament is carried through the Temple the People by bowing themselves adore it , and falling on their knees kiss the earth . In all these main points ( if candidly represented ) they agree with us and differ from Protestants . Other things hee mentions indeed in which they differ from us both , as in denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost , not using Confirmation , observing the Iewish Sabbath with the L d' s day , &c. As also , some practises , not touching faith , in which they hold with the Protestants , not with us ; as in administring the Sacrament in both kinds , using leauened bread in the Sacrament , Priests marriage , there is no one point , produced by him , which our Church looks upon as a point of faith in which they dissent from us and consent with the Protestants except that one of denying the Pope's Supremacy ; for their onely not using Extreme-Vnction , which hee intimates signifies not that they hold it unlawfull , or deny it . Iudge then candid Protestant Reader , of they Bp ' s sincerity , who brags of his holding Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do ; whereas , if wee come to examin particulars , they neither communicate in one common Government , one common Rule of faith , if wee may trust this Authour of their own side ( since if the Greeks hold the Authority of the Church and Traditions as much as Catholikes do , as hee sayes , they must hold it as their Rule of faith , for so Catholikes hold it ) nor yet in any one materiall point in opposition to us , save onely in denying the Pope's Supremacy . And how more moderate they are even in this than the greatest part of , if not all Protestants , may bee learned from the Bp ' s mistaken testimony , at the end of this Section , as also from Nilus an avowed writer of theirs for the Greek Church against the Latine , and one of the gravest Bp ' s and Authours of that party , who shuts up his book concerning the Pope's Primacy , in these words . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The summe is this ; As long as the Pope preserves order , and stands with truth , hee is not removed from the first and his proper Principality , and hee is the Head of the Church , and chief Bishop , and the successour of Peter and of the rest of the Apostles , and it behooves all men to obey him , and there is nothing which can detract from the honour due to him ; but if , when hee hath once strayed from the Truth , hee will not return to it , hee will bee liable to the punishment of the damned . Where , the Reader will easily judge whether the former words sound more incliningly to the Catholike or the Protestant tenet ; and , as for the latter words , But if , &c. There is no Catholike but will say the same . Thus much then for my L d of Derry's Communion with the Eastern Church . And as for his Communion with the Southern , Northern , & Western Churches , which hee thunders out so boldly as if all the world were on his side and of his Religion , if examin'd 't is no better than the former ; sence his side denies immediate Tradition of forefathers or the living voice of the present Church to bee the Rule of faith , which is to the Roman Church the fundamentall of fundamentalls . Nor has hee any other Rule of faith , that is , a plain and certain method of interpreting Scripture common to him and his weakly rel●ted Brethren ; so that if they hit sometimes in some points , 't is but as the Planets , whichare ever wandring , hap now and then to have conjunctions , which hold not long , but pursving their unconstant course , decline and vary from one another by degrees , and are at length crost by diacentricall oppositions . The rest of this paragraph insists again upon his often answer'd saying that the creed contains all necessary points , which is grounded onely upon his falsifying the Council of Ephesus , as hath been shown heretofore . To my many former replies vnto this pretence I add onely this , that either it is a necessary point to believe there is such a thing as God's written word ( or the Scripture ) or not : If not , then why do the Protestants challenge it for their Rule of faith ? Is not the Ground of all faith a necessary point ? But if it bee a necessary point , then all necessary points are not in the Apostles creed ; for there is no news there of the Scripture : nor is it known how much thereof was written when the Apostles made their creed , what hee adds of our having chāged from our Ancestors in opinions ; either hee means by opinions , points of faith held so by us , and then 't is calumny , and is to be solidly proued not barely said ; But , if hee mean School opinions , what hurt is done that those things should be changed which are in their 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 ●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 in that Council , and yet bee a lawfull one too ? Rub up your memory , my L d. ( you pretend to bee a piece of a Lawyer ) and I beleeve you will finde an English law that Sixty members is a sufficient number to make a lawfull Parliament ; and before that law was made common consent & custome ( which is either equivalent or perhaps above law ) gave the same for granted . Fourthly , he excepts against the super proportion'd multitude of members out of one Province , which hee sayes never lawfull Parliament had . I ask , if other Provinces would neither send a fit number nor they had a minde to come , by what law , by what reason should it render illegitimate either Parliament or Council ? Now , 't is certain and not deny'd by any , but that Bishop's had as free liberty to come out of other Provinces as out of Italy had they pleased . Again , the principall busines being to testify the Tradition of former ages , & a small number of Bishops serving for that ; and the collaterall or secundary busines being to examin the difficulties those Hereticks , which were the occasion of the Council , produced , that they might be confuted fully , & out of their own mouthes , which is a thing to bee performed by committees , in which learned men that were not Bishops might sit , it little inferred the want of Bishops . Wherefore , if there were any error in the supernumerarines of Bishops out of some one Province , it was for some other end than for the condemnation of Heresies , & so is nothing to our purpose ; unles perhaps my L d will pretend that had those Catholike B p' s out of other Provinces been there , they would have voted against their fellow Catholikes in behalf of Luther or Calvin . which were a wise Answer indeed . Fifthly hee excepts that the Council of Trent is not received in France in point of Discipline . What then ? why , by his parallell to a Parliament hee concludes hence t was no lawfull Council . Which is to abuse the eyes of the whole world , who all see that France , who denies the admission of those points of Discipline , acknowledges it not withstanding a generall & lawfull Council , and receives it in all determinations belonging to faith , which are so essential to it as it were disacknowledg'd , were they deny'd ; though not in matters of fact , which are accidentall to it's Authority , nay allow'd by the Church it self ( however made & exprest generally ) to binde particular countries onely in due circumstances & according to their conveniencies . Lastly , hee alledges that they were not allow'd to speak freely in the Council of Trent . Which is a flat calumny ; and though most important to his cause could hee prove it , yet after his bold custome , 't is onely asserted by his own bare saying , by Sleidan a notoriously lying Author of their own side , and by a passage or two in the History of the Council of Trent , whereof the first is onely a ieering expression ( any thing will serve the B p. ) the other concerning the Pope's creating new Bp's nothing at all to his purpose ; since both these new & the other old B p' s were all of one Religion & Catholikes ; & so not likely to dissent in vo●ing Doctrines ; which kind of votes are essentiall to a Council & pertinent to our discourse , which is about Doctrines not about Discipline . After this hee puts down three solutions ( as hee calls them ) to our plea of the Patriarchall Authority . First , that Britain was no part of the Roman Patriarchate . And this hee calls his first solution . Secondly that though it had been , yet the Popes have both quitted & forfeited their Patriarchall power ; and , though they had not , yet it is lawfully transferred And this is his second solution . The third is , that the difference between them and us is not concerning any Patriarchall Authority . And this is his third solution ; which is a very really good one , & shows that the other need no reply : our charge against them being for renouncing the supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority of divine Institution ; not a Patriarchate onely , of humane Institution . If further answer bee demanded , first , the Greek Schismaticks , our enemies , confess that England was a part of the Pope's Patriarchate if it bee truly called a Western Church ; see Barlaam Monachus de Papae Principatu , c. 11 and Part. 1. Sect. 15. of the adjoyning Treatise . Next , it is falsely pretended that the Pope's have either quitted or forfeited their Patriarchall Authority ; and may with equall reason bee concluded , that a Bishop quits Episcopall Authority if hee is also a Patriarch ; or that a person must leave of to be Master of his own family , because hee is made King and his Authority universally extended to all England . Which last instance may also serve against the pretended inconsistency of the Papall and Patriarchall power , if it need any more answer than what hath formerly been given Sect. 4. I omit his calumnies against the Papall Authority charactering it falsly as a meere unbridled tyranny . And his thrice repeated non-sence ; when hee joyns in one notion Patriarchall Authority : a Patriarchy being a Government by one , an Aristocracy by many . Nor is his other calumniating expression much better when hee calls the Papall Authority , a Soveraign Monarchicall Royalty : since it was never pretended by Catholikes that the Pope is the King of the Church . The notion of Priest and Sacrifice being relative , the failing of the one destroyes the other : since then the Protestants have no Sacrifice they are convinced to have no Priests . This point in particular hee never touch't , but talk't a little in obscure terms of matter & form of ordination , as if it were not an easy thing to say what words they pleased , and do what actions they pleased . To this the Bishop onely replies that hee over did and set down the point of Sacrifice over distinctly . Next , hee tells us their Registers are publike offices , whether any man may repair at pleasure . whereas , our question is not of the Registers in generall , but of that one particular pretended Register of the right ordination of Protestant Bishops , kept conceal'd from the free perusall of Catholikes though the circumstances ( to wit their alledging the unlawfulnes of the Protestant Bishops ordination ) requir'd it should bee shown . His next paragraph concerning their uncharitablenes needs not bee repeated unles it could be mended . My expedient to procure peace & Vnity , which was to receive the root of Christianity , a practicall infallibility in the Church , hee seems willing to admit of . Onely hee adds that the greater difficulty will bee what this Catholike Church is ; and indeed to his party 't is an insuperableone ; though to us most facil , as I have shown formerly , Sect. 7. Hee call'd the Bishops of Italy , the Pope's parasiticall pentioners ; I reply'd , it seem'd his Lordship Kept a good table and had great revenews independent on any . Hee answers , hee was not in passion , and that hee Spoke onely against meer Episcopelles ; which is to show that his passion is nothing abated yet ; by adding such unsavory 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 Rome would make , which more & more evidences that the acknowledgment of the Popes iust power was retained by the Greeks , and encroachments upon their Liberties onely deny'd , which the French Church intended to imitate ; Now , 〈◊〉 cannot bee pretended with any shame that Gerson and the french Church mean't to disacknowledge the Pope's iust power , as Head of the Church , nor will Gersons words even now cited let it bee pretended ; for then without any ( perhaps ) not onely some ( as hee doubts ) but all in the Court of Rome would most certainly have contradicted it . Their consideration then being parallell to that of the Greeks , as the Bp. grants , it follow'd that they acknowledg'd the Pope's Authority though they passively remain'd separate rather than humour a demand which they deem'd irrationall . Thus the Bishop first cited a testimony against himself , as was shown in Schism Disarm'd ; and would excuse it by bringing three or four proofs , each of which is against himself also ; so that as hee begun like a Bowler , hee ends like one of those Artificers , who going to mend one hole use to make other three . THE CONCLVSION . The Controuersy between us is rationally and plainly summ'd up in these few Aphorisms . 1. THat ( whatsoever the Extent of the Pope's Authority bee or bee not , yet ) 't is cl ar that all Roman-Catholikes , that is , all Communicants with the Church of Rome or Papists ( as they call them ) hold the substance of the Pope's Authority ; that is , hold the Pope to bee Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour in God's Church . This is euident out of the very terms , since to acknowledge the Papall Authority is to bee a Papist or a Communicant with the Church of Rome . 2. The holding or acknowledging this Authority is to all that hold it , that is to the whole Church of Rome , or to all those particular Churches united with Rome , a Principle of Vnity of Government . This is plain likewise out of the terms ; since an acknowledgment of one Supreme Governour either in Secular , or Spirituall affairs is the Ground which establishes those acknowledgers in submission to that one Government ; that is , 't is to them a Principle of Vnity in Government . 3. 'T is euident and acknowledg'd that ( whateuer some Catholikes hold besides , or not hold , yet ) all those Churches in Communion with the Churches of Rome hold firmly that whatsoever the living voice of the present Church , that is , of Pastours and Fathers of Fam●lies , shall unanimously conspire to teach and deliuer Learners and Children to have been recieued from their immediate fathers as taught by Christ and his Apostles , is to bee undoubtedly held as indeed taught by them , that is , is to bee held as a point of faith ; and that the voice of the present Church thus deliuering is infallible , that is , that this deliuery from immediate forefathers as from theirs , as from Christ , is an infallible and certain Rule of faith , that is , is a Principle of Vnity in faith . This to bee the tenet of all these Churches in Communion with Rome both sides acknowledge , and is Evident hence that the Body made up of these Churches ever cast out from themselves all that did innouate against this tenure . 4. 'T is manifest that all the Churches in Communion with Rome equally held at the time of the Protestant Reformation in K. Henry's dayes these two Principles as they do now , that is , the substance of the Pope's Authority or that hee is Supreme in God's Church , and that the living voice of the present Church delivering as aboue said is the infallible Rule of faith This is manifested by our Aduersaries impugning the former Churches as holding Tradition and the Pope's Headship ; nor was it ever pretended by Friend or Foe that either those Churches held not those tenets then , or that they have renounc't them since . 5. The Church of England immediately before the Reformation was one of those Churches which held Communion with Rome , ( as all the world grants ) and consequently held with the rest these two former tenets prou'd to have been the Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government . 6. That Body of Christians or that Christian Common-wealth consisting of the then-Church of England and other Churches in Communion with Rome , holding Christ's law upon the sayd tenure of immediate Tradition and submitting to the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of the Pope , was a true and reall Church . This is manifest by our very Adversaries acknowledgment , who grant the now Church of Rome , even without their Church , to bee a true and reall one , though holding the same Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government . 7. That Body consisting of the then Church of England and her other fellow communicants with Rome , was united or made one by means of these two Principles of Vnity . For the undoubted acknowledgment of one common Rule of faith to bee certain is in it's own nature apt to unite those acknowledger's in faith , that is , to unite them as faithfull and consequently in all other actions springing from faith And the undoubted acknowledgment of one Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour gave these acknowledgers an Ecclesiasticall Vnity or Church-communion under the notion of Governed or subjects of an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth . Now nothing can more neerly touch a Church , than the Rules of faith and Government , especially if the Government bee of faith and recieved upon it's Rule . Seeing then these principles gave them some Vnity , and Communion as Faithfull , and as belonging to an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth , it must necessarily bee Church Vnity , and Comunion which it gave them . 8. The Protestant Reformers renoun'ct both these Principles . This is undeniably evident since they left of to hold the Popes Supreme power to act in Ecclesiasticall affairs , and also to hold diverse points , which the former Church immediately before the breach , had recieved from immediate Pastours & fathers , as from Christ . 9. Hence follows unavoidably , that those Reformers in renouncing those two Principles did the fact of breaking Church Communion , or Schismatizing . This is demonstrably consequent from the two last Paragraphs , where 't is proved that those two Principles made Church Communion , that is , caused Vnity in that Body which themselves acknowledge a true Church ; as also that they renounced or broke those Principles ; therefore they broke that which united the Church , therefore they broke the Vnity of the Church or Schismatiz'd . 10. This renouncing those two Principles of Ecclesiasticall Communion , prou'd to have been an actuall breach of Church Vnity , was antecedent to the Pope's excommunicating the Protestants , and his commanding Catholikes to abstain from their Communion . This is known , and acknowledg'd by all the world ; nor till they were Protestants by renouncing those Principles could they bee excommunicated as Protestants . 11. This actuall breach of Church Vnity in K. Henry's , E d the 6th's and the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign , could not bee imputable to the subsequent Excommunication , as to it's cause . 'T is plain , since the effect cannot bee before the cause . 12. Those subsequent Excommunications , caused not the actuall breach or 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 disv●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 this case , where the point is demonstrable , and of highest concern , no reason meerly probable , how strongly soever it bee such , can convince the understanding , that the Contrary was better to bee done , but onely a manifest , and rigorous demonstration . For , though in the commoner sort of humane actions an high Probability , that the thing is in it self better , bee sufficient for action , yet there are some things of a nature , so manifest to all Mankind to bee universally good , that nothing , but rigorous Evidence , can bee pretended a Ground sufficient to oppose them . For example , that Parents are to bee honored , that Government is to bee in the world , that Vnity of Government is to bee kept up in God's Church , that there ought to bee certain Grounds for faith , and such like . Which , since on the one side they are such as are in their own nature demonstrable , and indeed self evident ; on the other so universally beneficiall , and consequently an universall harm , or rather a deluge of inconveniences , and mischief break in if the Acter against these should hap to bee in the wrong ; hee is , therefore , bound in these cases not to act till hee sees the utmost that is to bee seen concerning such affairs ; but affairs of this nature are demonstrable , or rather self evident ( as is said ) on the one side , therefore hee ought not to act , unles hee could see perfect demonstration , that 't is better to do the other : Wherefore , it being evidenced most manifestly in the 6th Section of this , Vindication of my Appendix , that this fact of theirs left neither , Certain Ground of faith , nor Vnity of Government in God's Church , nothing but a perfect and rigorous demonstration , could bee able to convince , the understanding that 't was better to ●ct . 20. The Protestants produce no such demonstration , that ●was better to act in this case . For , they never clos'd with severe demonstration , in any of their writings I have yet seen to Evidence rigorously either , that the Rule of immediate delivery was not certain , or that the Pope had no Supreme Authority in Ecclesiasticall affairs , or , lastly , that , though hee were such , yet the Authority was to bee abolish't for the Abuses sake ; Which were necessary to bee done ere they could demonstrate it better to break Church Vnity . Nor , indeed , does their manner of writing bear the slenderest resemblance , of rigorous demonstration : since demonstration , is not a connecting of Ayre and words , but of Notions and sence , and this from self evident Principles even to the very intended conclusion . Whereas their way of writing is onely to find out the sence of words by a Dictionary kind of manner ; which sort of Discourse , is the most fallible , most sleight and most subject to Equivocation , that can bee imagin'd . To omit that rigorous demonstration , is pretended by our party for our Rule of faith , immediate Tradition , which they renounc't ; and , consequently , for whatsoever was recieved upon it ( as was the Pope's Authority ) as yet unanswer'd by their side . Nay their own side sometimes acknowledge , our said Rule of faith infallible . See Schism Dispatch't . p. 104. & p. 123. 21. 'T is the most absurd , and impious folly imaginable to bring for their excuse , that they were fully persuaded the thing was to bee done or is to bee continued . For , since a full persuasion , can spring from Passion or Vice aswell , as from reason and virtue ( as all the world sees , and grants ) it signifies nothing in order to an excuse to say one was fully persuaded hee was to do such a thing till hee show whence hee became thus persuaded ; otherwise his persuasion , might bee a fault it self , and the occasion of his other fault in thus acting . 'T is not therefore his persuasion , but the Ground of his persuasion , which is to bee alledged and look't into . Which , if it were reason , whence hee became thus persuaded , and that hee knew how hee came to bee persuaded ( without knowing which 't was irrational to bee persuaded at all ) then hee can render us this reason , which persuaded him ; and reason telling us evidently that no reason , less than demonstration , is in our case able to breed full persuasion , or conviction , that it was , better to act ( as hath been proved Aph. 19. ) it follows they must give us a demonstrative reason , why 't was better to bee done , otherwise they can never iustify that persuasion , much less the fact which issued from it : But , the fact being evidently enormous , and against a present order of highest concern , and no truly Evident reason appearing , why 't was better , to do that fact , 't is from it self convinc't , and concluded irrationall , precipitate and vicious . If they complain of this doctrine , as too rigorous in leaving no excuse for weak , and ignorant persons who act out of simplicity ; I reply : Either their first Reformers , and themselves the continuers of the Breach , thought themselves ignorant in those things they went about to reform , or no. If they thought themselves ignorant , and yet attempted to make themselves iudges , 't is a plain self-Condemnation , and irrationall . If they were ignorant , or in some degree ignorant and yet either thought themselves not ignorant , or in some degree less ignorant , then I ask what made them think themselves wiser than they were except their own Pride : So that which way soever they turn , their fault and guilt pursve them . But , if they were indeed knowing in those things , then 't is apparent there are no truly sufficient , convincing or demonstrative reasons to bee given why they acted , since they were never able to produce any such , though urged and obliged there unto by the highest motives imaginable . Whence they remain still criminall as in the former cases , and indeed much more , leaving it manifest , that neither persuasion , nor their fact which was originiz'd from it , sprung from reason in their understanding , but from Passion and Affection in their Wills. THEREFORE THE PROTESTANTS ARE GVILTY BOTH OF MATERIALL , AND FORMALL SCHISM ; SINCE 'T IS EVIDENT THEY HAVE DONE BOTH A SCHISMATICALL FACT , AND OVT OF A SCHISMATICALL AFFECTION . FINIS . THE POST-SCRIPT . IF my Adversaries will undertake to reply in a rigorously demonstrative way , which , as it onely is conclusive , so none but it can avail them to iustify a Fact of this nature , they shall have a fair return , from their Disarmer . Otherwise , if they resolve to pursve their old method of talking preachingly , quotingly and quibblingly , hee can bee content to leave them to the Applause of weak and half-witted Readers , and to the Laughter and contempt of rationall and intelligent persons . INDEX TO THE TREATISE Against Dr. Hammond . A , ABsurdtiies in Dr. H. p. 215 three til ( this page the Collectour , neglected to gather them ) p. 216. three more . Other three p. 217. Heaps of others from p. 217. till p. 221. Also p. 272 and 274. Two more , p. 279. His Absurdity of Absurdities that it was forbidden by Moses his Law to converse with or preach to a Gentile , from p. 308. to p. 319. A shameless Absurdity in making a Testimony totally against 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 ●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. 37● . 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 ●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 , falssific●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 the Question , p. 39 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 74. and indeed almost over all the Book . False pretence of a silly Argument , as put by his Adversary , whereas he feigned it himself , p. 438 , 439. Falsification objected by Dr. H. cleared most evidently from p. 459 , to p. 468. Falsifying his Adversaries manner of Expression , wilfully to accuse him of a Falsification , p. 464. 465. G. GEneral Councels now morally impossible , and when probable to be had according to Dr. H. p. 141. Their Authority doubted of by him , p. 138. Grounds concluding the whole Controversie , p. 36 , to 55. I. IGnorance in Logick , p. 76 , 135 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 157. 158. 281. ( twice ) 376 , 384. ( twice ) 424. Ignorance in his Accidence , shewn by ten several Instances , p. 84. to p 90. Ignorance of the signification of the common School-terms , in telling us the Pope is not a Summum Genus , p. 159. Affected Ignorance of common sense , in impugning a Name or Title , instead of a Thing , p. 164 , 165 , 166. in arguing from Fulness to Equality , p. 261. 262. in concluding from either side of the Contradiction p. 304. 305. in deducing many consequences from perfectly unconcerning Premises p. 305. 306. 307. in building upon the reconcilement of contradictory Testimonies , ere he knows or goes about to prove them true p. 325. 326. in expecting the like from his Adversary p. 364. 365. in arguing from Plurality to Equality p. 429. Ignorance how the Holy Ghost is in the Faithful p. 429 , 430 Miserable Ignorance in Dogmatizing upon the Mystical sense of Testimonies p. 417. 418 ▪ 419 ▪ 443. 444. Ignorance of the way of interpreting Scripture p. 187. 188. 189 190. 278. 279. Ignorance of the distinction between a Title and an Argument p. 176. between an Interpreter and a Grammarian p. 187. between a Parenthesis and a Comma , p. 194. between a Parenthesis and a Comma p. 194. between Samaritans and Gentiles , p 308. affected Ignorance of our Tenet , p. 340. 341. 354. 369. 370. 385. 386. our Proofs , p. 264. of his being the Opponent , I the Defendant p. 249. Pitiful ignorance in not knowing the nature of a Proof , p. 338. Most nonsensical Ignorance , p. 401 , 402. Incertainty of Faith , unable to ground a rational zeal , p 14 , 15. Dr. H's . Churches absolute incertainty of her faith avowed by himself , p. 110. 111. Incertainty of faith , how absurd and disedifying , if brought into practice , or put in a Sermon , p. 125 , 126. Infallibility of our Church , how held by us , p. 97 , 98 ▪ No Church without Infallibity , p. 98 , 99. No Power to binde to Belief , without Infallibility , ib. Also p. 108 , 109. Denial of infallibility , pernicious to all Faith , p. 123. K. MR. Knots Position vindicated , p. 96. 97. 98 , 99. also p. 103. 104. M. MIstaking willfully every line of my Introduction , p. 55 , 56 , 57 , 58. &c. to 69 , his other Mistakes sprung from wilfullness or weakness are too many to be reckoned up : This one instance will abundantly suffice to inform the Reader what he may expect in his answering the rest and more difficult part of the Book . Motives of Union in our Church , p. 128. O. Omitting to answer to most concerning points , p. 95 , 145 , 312 , 313. ( four times ) 329 , 330. ( other four times ) 381 , 382 , 383. Omitting to reply to my Answers or Exceptions , and to strengthen his own weak Arguments , p. 157 , 173 , 174 , 117 , 158 , 329 , 330. ( six times ) 425 , 426 ( thrice ) 429 , 445 , 446 , 447. ( twice ) 447 , 448. ( twice ) Omitting to mention those words in my Epistle to the Reader , which solely imported , p. 31 , 32. To answer the true import of my introduction , p. 65 , 66. To answer whether his Reasons be onely probable or no , p. 90 , 91. To oppose our true Evidence , though he pretends it , p. 175. To answer his Adversaries challenge , that he had not one word in his many Testimonies to prove his main point , but what himself put in of his own head , p. 203. 204. Omitting to shew one testimony which confirmed his own , We know ; but instead of doing so , cavilling and railing at his Adversary , p. 302 , 303. Omitting his Adversaries chief words , and thence taking occasion to cavill against the rest , p. 278. Omitting to clear himself of his falsifying Scripture , p. 307 , 308. and of falsifying the Apostolical Constitutions , p. 319 , 320 &c. Omitting to reply to the Text of S. Mat. urged against him , p. 394 , also to two important Paragraphs of Schism , Dis . p 406 Omitting to cite the place , or even the Book of three authors ; whereof those which could be found , are expresly against him , p. 414 , to 421. Omitting our argument from Tu es Petrus , though pretending he puts it , p. 435 , 436 , Reasons why the Disarmer omitted that part of Dr. H's Book , which himself acknowledges unnecessary , p. 452 , 453 , &c. Opponents part belongs to the Protestants , Defendants to us , p. 47 , 48 , 76 , 77 , 274. P. PAtriarchy of the Bishop of Rome mistaken for Metropolitical power , p. 145. It s extent weakly impugned by four Testimonies , which not so much as mention it , p. 146. 147 , by Rufinus , 151 , 152 , 153. Rather justifiedly the Nicene Canon pretended to oppose it , p. 149 , 150. Acknowledged by the Greeks our Adversaries to extend to all the West , p. 155 , 156. Power of binding to Belief , what it consists in , p. 118 , 119 That our Church rationally claims , this Power , but that none else can , p. 120 , 121 , 122. Possession , not to be disturbed without sufficient motives p. 38 , This of the Popes in England not to be rejected upon less reasons , than rigorously evident that it was usurpt p , 40 , 41 , 42. Possession of Catholicks justly pretendable to have some from Christ , and so may be it self a Title , but that of Protestants cann ot p. 49 , So the advantages of ours , the disadvantages of their Possession , p. 129 , 130. Again , most amply , p , 178. 179. Theirs not truly named a Possession , p 180 181. Prevarication from his own most expres words , the whole tenour of his Discourse , the main scope of his most substantiall Chapter , and lastly , from the whole Question , p , 202 , to 207. From performing a most advantageous challenge , accepted by himself , p 345 346. Other Prevarications , p. 108 , 109 , 110 , 112 , 185 , 377 , 383 , 384 , 391 , 436 and in many other places too numerus to be noted . Proofs brought by Protestants against our ground of Faith , arrive not to a Probability , p. 44 , 45 , 46 , Dr. H's Proofs , which he formerly call'd Evidences , metamorphos'd now into Branches of Accordance , Agreeances and Fancies , and all deny'd by himself to be Proofs , except one , p. 360 , 361 , 362. That one found to be empty and ill-treated , p. 362 , 363 , 364. R. REspect for mine Adversaries avowed Ep. to the Reader . Also p. 18 , 19 , 472. 473. S. Schisms Nature and Definition , p. 70. Schisms , Divisions as put by Dr. H. in his Defence , wanting all the principall sorts of Schism objected , p , 136. to p. 144. T. TEstimonies b●ought by Dr. H. against himself , p , 149 , 162 , 171 , 232 , 234 , 235. 238 , 239 , 300 , 171 , 324 , ( thrice ) 368 , 433. Testimonies impertinent to the purpose , four , from Appeals denyed p ▪ 159 ▪ 160 161. 162 , 163 From , Names and Titles denyed , p 164 165 166 167 from S. Amb●ose , 23● . 232. and 234. from S. Chrysost . and Theophylact. p 233 from Clemens , p. 258. 259. from S Chrysost , again , p. 274 , 275 , also p 286 287 Three impertinent Testimonies for S. Johns being over the Jews onely , p. 366 , 367 , His Testimony from Scripture for his Exclusive Provinces truely explicated , and that Explication made good . p. 224 , 225 , &c. His most serviceable Testimony from the Arch-heretick Pelagius , p. 239. This Testimony mainly rely'd on , p. 242. 306. 346. 348. Testimony from S. Hierom , clearing the point of Exclusive Jurisdiction . p. 251. to 255. S. Chrysostomes express Testimony against himself , whom he cites most for him in this point , p 279. 280. Three most manifest Testimonies from S. Chrysost . for S. Peters Supremacy , p. 288. to 292. Testimony from S. Cyprian and S. Austinc , for S. Peters Authority , p. 292. to 297. Testimony from our own Canon Law senselesly brought against us , p. 297. to 301. A Testimony expresly against himself 〈◊〉 every Tittle brought to make good all his former Testimonies , p. ●26 . 327. Six Testimonies of 〈◊〉 shown invalid by Schism disarm'd , left unmaintained by their Alledger , p. 329. 330. Testimonies from Scripture for the promise and performance of a particular degree of Authority in S. Pe●●● urged p. 393. to 400 His own Testimony from S. Hillary expresly against him , p. 416 , A Testimony produc'd as for him , which contradicts him in five particulars , p. 418 419. His Testimony from Scripture for twelve Episcopall Chairs , p. 421. 423. The Testimony Tu es Petrus , &c. urged by us p. 434. 435. Testimony from Justinians Novels ●oubly and notoriously falsified , p. 468. 469. W. WEaknesse in producing blindly places of Scripture unapplyed to any Circumstance , p. 4 , 5. In imputing Contumeliousness to his Adversary , p , 6 , 7 , 9. Yet using worse himself , p. 6. 8 , 9 , 10. In expecting that Adversaries in a scrious quarrell should spare one another , p. 7. In his manner of writing Epist . to the Reader , p. 6 , 17 , 19 , In quoting Saint Hierom against the Disarmer to his own utter overthrow , p. 21 , 22 , 23 , &c. In totally mistaking the common sense of a plain Epistle to the Reader , p. 29 , 30. &c. In arguing by Ifs , p. 77 , 78. thrice . Also , p. 138 , 182 , 183 , 356 , 357 , Thirteen weaknesses about one point , p. 96 , to 106. There are innumerable others , but I am weary . A List of their common Heads may be seen , p. 454 , 455. The total sum of Dr. Hammond's faults committed in the first Part of his reply ( that is , within the compass of thirty seven leaves ) favourably reckon'd , is this . Absurdities , threescore and two . Abuses twenty nine : Blasphemies , seven . Groundless Cavils , fifteen . Calumnies , twelve . Contradictions , seventy six False-dealings , forty four , besides his changing the words and sense of others . Ignorances , great part of which are affected , fifty . Omissions of his necessary duty , forty Bringing Testimonies for him which are against him , one and twenty . Mistakes . Prevarications , Shufflings . Weaknesses . for the most part voluntary ▪ sans nombre . INDEX To the Treatise against my Lord of DERRY . ABsurdities , p. 484 , 485 , 491 , 493 , 496 , 498 , 506 , 516 , 521 , 527 , 528 , 529 , 530 , 536 , 537 , 541 , 542 , 574 , 594 , 595 , 603 , 621 , 622 , 629 , twice 635 , 640 , 641 , 647 , 524 , 570 , 571. Absurdity in bragging of his Churches large Communion , p , 641 , 642 , 643 , Breaking Church-Unity inexcusable , p. 569. 570. 571. 662. 663. 664. Cavills groundlesly rais'd , p. 483 , 484 , 485 , 499 , 501 , 502 , 524 , 541 , 565 , 572 , 599 , 632 , 935 , 952 , 653. Cavills against the Council of Trent answered , p. 645 , 646 , 647 , 648 , 649. Contradictions to himself p. 491 , 496 ( twice ) 500 527 , 540 ( twice ) 554 , 565 , 571 , 576 , 577. also , p. 578 , 579 , ( four times ) 590 , 591 , 594 , 601 , 602 603 , 604 , 607 ( twice ) 610 ( twice ) 611 , 621 , ( twice ) 631 , 632 , 633 , , 644 , 653 , 654 , 655 , 656 Other Contradictions . p. 497 , 498 , 522 , 527 , 528 , 582 , 583 , ( thrice ) 587 , 634 , 651. Contradicting the whole world's ages , p. 530 , 559 , 560. Controversy , what , p. 502. Creed of the Apostles why instituted , p. 492. why other Creeds or Professions , p. 492 , 463. Defendent , who properly , p , 511. Falsification of the Council of Ephesus in four respects . p. 493 , 494 , 495. of his Adversaries words , p. 525 , 526 , 630 , 631 , of the Council of Sardica , p. 537 , 538 , of Bede , p , 550 , of all our Historians at once , p. 549. False pretence of our stating the Question , p. 499. False stating the question , p , 500 , 501. Moderation of Protestants misrepresented from p. 581 , to 601. Mistaking wilfully our charge , p. 479 , 480. Omitting to tell us whether his Exceptions were Demonstrative or only probable , p , 475. Omitting one halfe of our charge , p. 477 , 478. Omitting to speak one positive word to the matter of Fact , p. 481 , 482. Omitting words most reli'd on by his Adversary , p , 540. Opponent , who properly , p , 511. Prevarication from answering and substituting common words for particular things , p. 486 , 487 , 488 , 489 , 490 , 599. Other Prevarications , p. 497 , 498 , 534 ( twice ) 569 , 570 , 575 , 632 , 633 , 638 , twice A most absurd and manifold Prevarication , p. 505 , 506 , 507 , 508. Again , 509 , 510. Also , 511 , 512 , 513 , Prevarications from the question , p. 553 , 557 , 562 , 563 , 564 , 592 , 600 , 607 , 608 , 612 , 613 , 614 , 615 , 616 , 621 , 622 , 623 , 624 , 625 , 526 , 627 , 635 , 650 , 651. Succession into St. Peters Headship due to the Bishop of Rome , p. 617 , 618. Testimony from the Council of Ephesus produced by . Lord D. p. 493 , 569 , & 573 , from English Statutes , p. 524 , from the Epistle of Pope Eleutherius , p. 539 , 540. Testimony from S. Prosper rejected by him , p. 540 , 541. His Testimony from the Welsh Manuscript m●nifoldly weak , from p. 542 , to p. 549. Unity of Faith broak by the Reformers , p. 570 , 571 , 572 , 657 , 658 , 659. Unity of Government broke by them , p. 573 , 574 , 575 , 576 , 658. 659. Universal Church impossible to be known by Protestant Grounds , from p. 595 , to p. 599. The total sum of faults committed by my Lord of Derry in his short Appendix , cast up , amount to . Absurdities , twenty nine , Cavils , sixteen . Contradictions , forty four . False dealings , twelve . Omissions of most important matters , which concerned the whole question , four . Prevarications , forty two . Corrections of the ERRATA IN the Title l. 2. dispach't . Epist . to the Reader p. 2. l. 11. this method ib. p. 6. t. 8. oratoriall . p. 12. l. ult . them , being . p. 13. l. 17. I doubt not p. 14. l. 32. be otherwise . p. 21. l. 15. his award . p. 32. l. 1. ruin more . p. 53. l. 11. if Christians . p. 54. l. 2. of schism . p. 54. l. 29. these positions . p 59. l. 17 extern . p. 95. l. 1. chap. 2. p. 105. l. 20 may not both . p. 108. l. 15. lawfull . p. 113. l. 22 most probable . p. 129. l. 20. have had . p. 142. l. 28. this consent . p. 146. l. 26 Bishops . p. 147. l. 26 quos . p. 149. l. 3 reply p. 34. p. 150. l. 26 in it . p. 152. l. 17 Bishops . p. 154. l. 20 epist . 10 p. 172. l. 7 Province . ib. l. 25 fifth . p. 173. l. 1 fifth p. 177. l. 11 his side . p. 187. 18. the word is . p. 195. l. 30 prepositive . p. 216. l. 29 offer here p. 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. l. 17. p. 222. l. 22 a pact . ib. l. 28 a pact . p. 241. l. 7 our Doctors p. 252. l. 18 gentilem . p. 236● l. 7 il phras'd . p. 257. l. 13 hath no. p. 261. l● 20 same tune . p. 266. l. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 301. l. 7 prejudiciall . p. 306. l. 34 possibly . p. 308. : . 13 from all othe● . ib. 33. hence all . p. 310. l. 34 commanded togather together . p. 318. l. 20 take to be p. 322. l. 13 in soft-reason'd . ib. l. 17 attending . p. 346. l. 19 which he affirms . p. 347. l. 12 vers . 1. we . ib. l. 15 Greeks . p. 350. l. 16 argumentative . ib. l. 31 fourth , p. 353. l. 8 ●ad won . p. 359. l. 28 here . Answer . p. 53. ● 361. l. 2 to him Answ . p. 49. l. 32. 33. p. 365. l. 1 repugnancies . p. 378. ●28 of asks . p. 381. l. 23 , 24 assents not sprung . p. 382. l. 31 it would . p. 391. l. 13 inclosure . p. 393. l. 9. found . p. 87. ● . 406 l. 17 rule p. 407 l. 1. par . 10. Answ . p. 63. ib. l. 11 exhortation . p. 408. l. 12. preferment , Rep. p. 68. Reply . p. 412. l. 13. as our Saviour did , ib. l. 31. expression . p. 420. l. 15. hands , reaping . ● . 424. l. 20. 〈◊〉 your . p. 443. l. 33. destroy ours , from his own . p. 448. l. 27. proportion . p. 450. l. 10. explicated , ib. l. 28. us three . p. 459. l. 2. ingenuous . p. 462. l. 2. grant . p. 469. l. 8. his former fault . p. 480. 4. 5. the Bishops f●llow-sencer , Dr. H. of Schism , cap. 7. par . 2. confess , &c. p. 484. l. 8. Sons by attestation . p. 486. l. 5. none can be . p. 490. l. 11. than that the ibid. l. 33. immediate . p. 496. l. 33. some such things . p. 498. l. 23. all the Grounds . p. 500. l. 3. Church or Successour of S. Peter . p 502. l. 8. These points . p. 506. l. 1. and indeed . p. 507. l. 3. manifest in . p. 511. l. 6. doth aloud . p. 511. l. 17. Opponent or Accaser . p. 512. l. ult . have afforded some . p. 513. l. 7. his Church , since if he means the discipline of the Church of England , &c. p. 514. l. 11● flickering , p. 519. l. 24. by my first . p. 520. l. 27. of non-ens . p. 533. l. 26. utter unauthentickness . p. 542. l. 34. the concomitant , 549. l. 2. are put down . p. 550. l. 32. corroborate the. p. 554. l. 21. Levi. p. 557. l. 25. now hold . p. 568. l. 11 by any tie . p. 577. l. 11. conf●sses . p. 21. l. 7. 8. Pag. 578 l. 33. nationall Laws . p. 591. l. 28. that no Society . p. 595. l. 3. have it h●ld . p. 600. l. 30. and no more . p. 603. l. 1. any 〈◊〉 ib. l. 4. ●ontests . p. 604. l. 17. no , my Lord. p. 605. l. 12. renouncing , p. 609. l. 2. These Evidencies . p. 612. l. 7. in noting . p. 613. l. 22. evince , p. 617. l. 26. 27. applying the. p. 620. l. 16. unites God's . p. 634. l. 10. as such● p. 638. l. 20. discourse , dull . p. 642. l. 21. but there is . p. 644. l. 8. d●ametricall . p. 645. l. 27. or of the p. 651. l. 4. A Patriarchall A●istocraticall Authority . p. 666. l. 19. neither their . FINIS .