SCHISM DISPACHED OR A REJOINDER TO THE REPLIES OF Dr HAMMOND AND THE Ld OF DERRY.  
IN MALA CAUSA 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 error's utmost, and of the Method it must necessarily take in its Progress. First, weaknesses of reasoning & insincerity must endeavour to establish the groundless Fabric; which once discovered, there is no way left but to fall into worse Paralogisms & Contradictions, and more open & inexcusable Falsifications. This is my charge in general against my two Adversaries; The Roll of their many faults in particular may be collected out of the Index. If I have wrong fully imposed any thing on them, let me sink in thy esteem; if justly, let them. I court no favour from thee but this that thou wouldst not give credit to this Rejoinder of mine, read alone, but in company still of their Replies: sometimes also upon occasion reflecting back on Dr Hammonds Book of Schism, my Ld of Derry's just Vindication of the Church of England, and Schism Disarmed: Consider, I put thee upon neither an unjust, unprofitable, unecessary not too troublesome a Method. Not unjust, since this gives thee a fair opportunity to balance equally in thy thoughts what both allege. Not unprofitable, since these two first Books of theirs being cried up for the best pieces which have come forth in these late days upon so concerning a subject, nothing can more largely contribute to thy Soul's repose than to be satisfactorily convinced whether they stand or fall. Not unnecessary; because without Method no secure satisfaction can be had; there being so many byways incident to obstinate and disingenuous maintainers of their tenet, as of omitting to Answer things important, waving the true point controverted, enlarging upon unconcerning passages, misrepresenting the true state of the Question▪ Testimonies, and one another's words, etc. That, without a joint-perusall of both party's writings, 'tis impossible to receive any rational 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 endamaged rational Soul's. Nor yet is this Method too troublesome; since, by seeing so numerous and such gross faults truly made good to be in these their writings, thou mayst justly hold thyself excused from reading the rest of their past or future works till they clear these their best to be both convincing & true dealing; Which, unless they perform effectively, I must challenge thy judgement and thy sincerity neither to give them assent nor credit.  
I confess, indeed, that, while I entreat thee to make use of this Method, I have a private end of mine own; knowing nothing could do me more particular Right than this. Many sober & candid persons reading Schism Disarmed (not considering that what is spoken in opposition to truth must necessarily be nonsense, and easy to be shown such if the Discoverer of it understands his own Grounds, be true to his cause, and will speak out) apprehended it impossible a Bishop and a Doctor, persons of so high repute for learning, should be obnoxious all over to such innumerable faults and such incredible weaknesses; and rather looked upon it as a piece of Wit, framing an Idea, as it were, of what humane frailty could possibly be subject to, than that it was so indeed: Till, coming to compare it with its Adversary-Books and scanning one in order to the other, they remained, as on the one side perfectly satisfied, so, on the other, extremely astonished at the weakness of Error. I know good Natures are loath to think men to be Monsters, that is, sencelesly irrational or voluntarily insincere: But, I hope I shall gain so far upon their reasons without wronging their good Natures, (for I concieve reason to be their best and only Nature) as to consider that in what we oppose one another, we contradict one another, and the one part only of the Contradiction can be Truth; wherefore the other part must necessarily be Falsehood, that is, nonsense. He than whose task it is to oppose the true side, must unavoidably talk nonsense if he oppose it directly; or else he must prevaricate from his Duty in opposing something else in stead of it, and so be 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 he brings any necessary and enforcing Argument, which admitted would destroy the true position, it must infallibly (since one Truth cannot quarrel with another) be a mere pretence or a Falsification, and so render the alledger insincere. Wherefore, since they and I, in what we oppose one another, maintain contradictory position, whereof one side and one only, must necessarily be Right, 'tis impossible but that one of us must either mistake in opposing the true point, and so manage our Discourse weakly; or wilfully neglect it and so play the Fool maliciously; or go about to oppose it with a real Truth, and so talk nonsense; 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 'tis, is left, Reader, to thy judgement; only be 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 Dr Hammond; the other is so divided into short Sections, to which mine are correspondent, that there needed no such exactness.  
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 acquaint and pretty flourishes; whereas, indeed, he never says 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 sense, which yet he 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 Optic to see from the Premises 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 be between the conclusion and Premises, to pick an Argument out of the whole Book; his notions are so dishevelled and loosely scattered about after a mere orationall and declamatory fashion. The latter is more candid and speaks plain, and so falls into more direct Contradictions, which he 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 boldness. The one's way of writing is properly charactered to be 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 sense from a man, as it were, in the dusky twilight; the other will needs rob you of it at noonday.  
Nor do I intend by this frank censure to derogate from the just opinion of learning due to them; I doubt not but they are men of much reading: Only I contend that their manner of Scholarship is an Historical and Verbal kind of Learning, and improperly called such, since to be 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 sense, but to speak consequently and convincingly belongs only to them who have Grounds, that is Truth on their side, since there can be no true Grounds nor solid reason for an Error. Whence again since one of us must have Truth, and but one of us can have it, 'tis manifest one of us only 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 informed Reader; whose pardon I humbly beg for using the same words so often, as nonsense, shuffling, weakness, etc. The frequent repetition of such unsavoury Tautologies sounded no less ingrateful to my ears, being really much ashamed to name so often what they so often did. But I de●ire it may be considered I was here to speak Truth not to vary phrases; and, both for this, as also for the seeming harshness of my Expressions, I crave leave to pose the Disliker with this Dilemma; that, since it was my task to be their accuser where I found them reproovable and Accusers are to call crimes by their own names, either they misdeserued or not; If not, I am willing to bearthe censure of having added Passion to Calumny; but if they were indeed thus blamable, than 'twas a rational 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 just occasion nor over proportioned to the degree of their faultiness) at all intended to vent my anger towards the persons, but only to breed in the Reader a due reflection on their faults: And, if this be ill Nature, I must avow it, that I hate a Contradiction with all my heart; resenting it as a far greater injury that any man should go about to disorder my Soul by imposing upon it a Falsehood 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 me into an ambush; and, I conceive that any one, who knows and prizes his Soul, will be 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-proportioned strokes, should not endure to hear harsh Discords without some impatience: Neither in making myself the parallel to such skilful Artists do I arrogate more to my self than only this that I have had the happiness to light on an excellent Master of reason, who is able to tune the thoughts of a rational Soul to the perfectest harmony; and that it pleased God to give me such an unprejudiced sincerity and such a competent degree of capacity as would permit and enable me 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 entreat this fair opinion from the Protestant Reader that he 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 be any man living who more cordially longs for or shall more industriously (to his power) endeavour an Union between all those who lay claim to Christ's name than myself, 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 itself, to such an happy end. But, on the other side, since an Uncertainty in the Rule and Root of faith is diametrically opposite to an Union in Faith (for how shall rational Soul's centre when they know not where to meet, nor have Grounds to bind them to a joint-assent, as without Evidence of Authority there can be none) hence I shall hope to have deserved well from all rational Lovers of Union in impugning vigorously and disgracing this tenet of Uncertainty, the Seed of all Heresies, Schisms & Dissension, and the Bane of Union; 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 mere Scepticism. For this end I have, upon all fitting occasions throughout this whole Treatise, inculcated a certainty in the said 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 be found by those who with a just and impartial 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 journey but only 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 established all the rest will infallibly follow, and without it no Ground of agreement can possibly be expected, I was obliged even out of my love to Union to maintain it inviolable by all means which Truth could justify to be lawful, 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 concerned, the Protestants shall find me always 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 toys and affected weaknesses, let the Reader fancy throughly my circumstances by perusing both Books together, and he shall see clearly it had been most improper to return those passages any other Answer: Or, if there be 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 be 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 he, writing against the Adversaries of faith) in my Book some passages which move one to Laughter, 'tis because the matter itself occasion it. There are many things which deserve to be thus mocked 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 she is naturally pleasant; and to exult over her Enemies, because she is secure of the victory. Care, indeed, is to be taken lest the mirth be base and unworthy of Truth; but, otherwise, when one can fittingly make advantage by it, 'tis a Duty to use it. Thus he. To which I shall only add these few words of S. Austin, whose Spirit, though all composed of charity and sweetness, breaks out into this smart demand. Who is so bold as to say that Truth should come forth unarmed when it combats falsehood, and that it is lawful for the Enemies of Religion to fright the faithful with great words and inveigle their Fancies with witty conciets, but that Catholics 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 apologise for, except only for the long delay of this rejoinder; the reason whereof is too well known to have been its miscarriage a twelvemonth ago & the difficulties since in bringing it to light in a foreign country. Which also pleads for an excuse of its many lapses in spelling and other frequent little mistakes, occasioned by the Composer's being a perfect stranger to our language. The grosser faults shall be noted in the Errata at the end, which I desire the Reader to correct ere he address himself to peruse the Book, in regard one of mine Adversaries did me so little justice as to cavil heretofore at a mistake of the Printer's in Schism Disarmed, though it were rectified 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 impartial and sincere Mind.   

SCHISM DISPATCHED. 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 weakness in imputing contumeliousnes.  
WHat Mr. Hammond professed of himself, that his chief design is to enjoy calm and peaceful thoughts, and to retire from polemical engagements, is no less the wish of his friendly Disarmor; who had permitted him to enjoy his Halcyon sollitarinesse, and to sleep securely in a whole skin had not himself ounded the Alarm 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 awakened 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 eternal and infaillible rule of faith, in which was fundamentally interessed the salvation of mankind, broken and disannulled, by the rejecting that Government which it recommended to us, as the Safeguard of our Faith: he saw his dearest Mother the holy Catholic Church Christ's sacred Spouse, by relation to wihch only he could hope for any title to salvation, abused and vilifyed: he saw his dear Countrymen run distractedly into an hundred sorts of Sects, all springing originally from that grand one of the schismatical Protestant Congregation: he observed how the Protestant party, though of late not reprehended much by Catholic writers (hoping their own vexatious divisions would at length give them understanding) were yet so unseasonably clamorous, as than 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 bend his weak utmost to continue and propagate that Schism, so universally destructive to Government, Faith, God's Church, his Country; 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 provocations to make the confutation of that Treatise the prentisage of his endeavours in Controversy.  
Rational 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 Doctors 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 imagined applications of some Texts, voted here poor S. W. whom he says (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 special sort one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unritghteous, and without repentance uncapable of going to heaven; and lastly▪ to be none of those Saints who, clavae non errante, (saith the Dr.) shall judge the world. A sad case that no punishment less than Hell must be poor S. W's doom, because he laid open the weakness of Dr. Hommonds defence of a pernicious cause, after the manner that such a a defence deserved And I wonder he had no more Charity than 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 says) that very dialect which the obstinate jews 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 add, 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 rudeness of blows argues not that they were not just, since none doubts, but Malefactors are very rudely, yet most justly whipped; and the courteous epithet of civil, denied not but the oil in his tongue was accompanied with venom in his heart, and so made it more necessary to discover that, whose only advantage it was, to lurk undiscoverable under the smooth outsde of a fair-languaged courtesy. 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 sense as he seems to take it; but since I spoke-it only in an Allegery, and in order to his wearing a vizard which I plucked 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 Logic does he huddle together those testimonies out of Scripture for S. W's passport to Hell, unless 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 general 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. john Baptist, who called the ill-prepared jews 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, etc. What of our Saviour, who called Herod, Fox, the prophaners of the Temple, Thiefs, the Scribes and Pharisees Hypocrites? And, to come nearer our present circumstances, what will become of Blessed S. Polycarp, (disciple to S. john the Evangelist, the tenderest recommender of Charity to his disciples of all the Apostles) who yet meeting with an heretic, 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. jude, who calls heretics 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 God's Church, whose custom it ever was to anathematis and curse all heretics, 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, reviling, contumelious, rude, and (which the Doctor most resents) beard-twitching language, if taken in themselves? Must then all this good company be deemed detestable, unrighteous, excommunicate, and blindly packed all away to hell together, for revilers, contumelious, etc. because they gave such hard language? The texts alleged by Mr. H. are very general, laying about them blindly and indifferently at Friends and Foes; and he allows them here no exception at all. Or, if he does, as I hope he will rather than involve such persons in his universal 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 heretics, men publicly noxious, the common good concerned ' 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 intemperate passion.  
Whence follows, 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 itself, is not impious, as has beenshown: but for having used them against Dr. H. Unhappy 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 heretics are his due, and without scruple of sin, might be given him by S. W. who had undertaken as a Catholic writer to lay open his faultiness. Let any man but read the Doctors 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 public propagatour of Schim may deserve. Wherefore, unless 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 only Mr. Hammond calumniates in a preaching manner, and out of Scripture, which makes the well-couched contumely less discernible. Thirdly, it were very easy for S. W. using the Doctors 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, etc. and then say that by Meroz is meant such as Mr. H. who writes against God's Church. This, I say, were as easy for the Disarmer: But he cannot but hate that in himself, which he nauseates at in another: He knows very well, and hopes the world, now grown wiser, plainly discerns it almost as impossible certainly to demonstrate truth by clashing together mere 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 only, Reusner like, in fragments picked out of several Authors, and then stitched together by voluntary transitions into a book.  
What is hitherto said is only 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▪ unless the Dr. can evidence that his cause is neither Heresy nor Schism; since, if it be, it remained very lawful for him to treat the public 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 personal and moral fault in another: did I note any in him? Indeed, as a writer; he was mine and the Church's Adversary; and as such it is most irrational I should spare him, when I saw my advantage. Do Duellers (if their quarrel be serious) use to spare their enemy, and not hurt him in that place where they see him unguarded? It were madness then to expect, that, where my adversary writ insincerely, I should not show him insincere; where blasphemously, blasphemous; where weakly, weak; where ridiculously, ridiculous, Upon such advantage offered I ought to have had no courtesy for him; unless I would prevaricate from my task, and betray the cause I had undertaken to defend, by a complimental connivance. If then I might upon his desert give him those characters, I hope it is necessarily consequent that words must be allowed me to express them; nor ought the lawful help of Rhetoric be interdicted me, to express them home. Now, if all art of Rhetoric gives it, that ridiculous things ought to be expressed ironically, let Dr. H. blame the art so unfriendly to him, and his own weakness which entitled 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 confess the fault, unless I manifested him equally excessive in the manner of deserving them: otherwise, as long as the proportion holds, I shall in reason account myself blameless.  
As a writer then against God's Church, D. H. aught in reason to expect no mercy at S. W's hands, but rigorous justice only: 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 revile of S. W. are no other the Dr. shall. inform the Reader, complaining here pag. 2. that the Publisher of the book hath solemny annexed a list of the contumelies, three and thirty piczed out by specialty, etc. since then these, as he says, are the speci all or chief contumelies, not to trouble the Reader with the whole Roll, we will only 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 Rabshakehs reproaches; 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 only 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 kingdom of heaven, and do but flatter and deceive myself if I hope I may; and lastly, am none of those Saints who (clavae non errante) shall judge the word. Thus are poor Catholics posted to hell by couples (for I suppose the Romish Factor must bear me company) without bale or mainprize, for manifesting that Dr. H. had forgot his Accidence. You wits of the Universities beware and take example by the fatal Catastrophe of S. W. when you write or dispute do not accuse your Adversary of inconsequence in his argument, mistakes in criticising, solecisms, 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 special sort unrighteous, and do but flatter yourselves, 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, etc. and therefore being only 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 faultiness, or else I must suppose him more innocent, (that is, deny mine own eyes:) and then, winking at his gross and pernicious errors, substitute courtesy to zeal, and instead of confuting, fall to compliment. 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 public, and dearest interest of men's 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 sheep's clothing. Let himself choose which side he pleases, I shall hold myself 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 appellation 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 self from the contumelies (forsooth) he hath received; and to aggravate his fault the more, he cannot be content to use his own words to express his gravity affecting passion; but, to make his railing more authoritative (as one said of a precise puritanical Dame, that she never cudgeled her Maid but in Scripture-phrase) so St. Paul must needs prophesy 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 avouched; yet all sounds zeal in him, which in another would be plain contumely: Should we desire St. Paul now to Excommunicate Dr. H. he would presently silence-us, by assuring'us, that St. Paul never meant harm to him, but to S. W. only, so secure a thing it is to be a dexterous Scripturist.   

Sect. 2.  
That the certainty of Faith (and that only) justly grounds zeal; and obliges the Propugner of that Faith to an impartial plainness with its Adversary, as taken-under that notion,  
THese ordinary Considerations, and obvious to common sense, I have offered 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 add, 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 itself. But lest the Dr. should mistake me (as his custom is) to beg the question, by supposing our Faith certain, I profess myself only to mean at present a deemed, or believed certainty of Faith in him who is to maintain it: Now whoever holds his Faith and its ground certain (as catholics 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 Schismatics, publicly pernicious, and one who by his poisonous Writings infects the souls of men with as heinous a vice as ever entitled any to damnation. Neither can he hold him otherwise, unless 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, unless he will hold the grounds of his own Faith doubtful; ought not this Catholic 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 ways which wit and art can invent, to confute and discredit that man's harmful sophistry, and disparage his authority, as fat as truth can justify his words? aught he not to trample down all tenderness 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 he 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 less) to give him the same language, if he be found to deserve it, as St. jude gave the Adversaries of Faith in his days, as the Fathers gave Porphyrius afterwards; nay more, if he sees he can make him justly ridiculous, why should he not express himself ironically too in order to his nonsense, as well as Elias might scoff 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 souls, since (as hath been proved) he cannot think him otherwise, unless he 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 unblamable indeed in that regard, but yet he is worthy of praise and commendations for proceeding 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 fears not to profess, that he makes account he hath as perfect evidence, or more than he hath for any thing in nature, that Truths of no less concernment than 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 merely speculative, but each of them visibile, and daily practical, could never die or decay out of the hearts of Christians, in any age. Nor hath he less evidence, that consequently (Scripture & its interpretation being subject to misprision, as far as they depend not upon this, and are regulated by it) Universal Tradition is the only certain and absolute rule of Faith; whence follows, that both they who build upon any other ground, have only 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, errs in none, not can err so long as the sticks close to so safe a Principle. Now then, finding no Church do this but the Roman-catholic (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 only 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 only she relies is impossible to fail, Hence, jastly, that I may come home to my intent, I account my faith certain, and the propagator of the contrary certainly pernicious to men's souls; and therefore 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 professed fallibitily and uncertainty is utterly 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 eagerness, unless reason be interessed first? and how can reason be obliged to the serious, and vigorous patronage of what it self 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 itself be but of trivial concernment, even Nature seems to stir 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 keenness of opposition, neither will any one unless 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 natural 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 Catholics go not consequently to their grounds, unless they defend with an eagerness and zeal proportionable to the concernment of the thing, their Faith, which they hold most certain and infallible; so Protestant's who confess 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 impugn it, nor express any great zeal in behalf of it; or if they do, then, their grounds not requiring it, all their heat and earnestness must manifestly arise from some passion or interest. They ought therefore to defend their problematical 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, aught in reason to be managed as an exercise of wit; since it consists only in this, who can most dexterously and artificially criticise upon words, and be most quick and ready to produce out of his storehouse either topical reasons, or testimonies (gleaned from all places and Authors) as shall seem most pat for the present occasion. And this is the reason why they desire no more, but that Catholic writers should treat them with a lukewarm courtesy, and by a respectful behaviour towards them, as leanerd men, see, mingly leave them some appearance that their Faith is probable, and then they think themselves safe, and are very well appayed, whereas it belongs to a Catholic Author, who holds his Faith certain to manifest the contrary to be perfectly absurd, and nonsense; 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 timorousness he prevaricates from his grounds, & by his fearful 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 betrays his own cause.  
I know my adversary will think he hath gained much by my forwardness in this last paragraph, and others also may perhaps judge that I have put myself upon the geatest disadvantage imaginable by professing voluntarily that it is my obligation to show his writings nonsense or impossible to be true; whereas a good prohabity that they are true will serve his turn▪ but, both the necessity of my Cause obliges me to it, which must leave them void 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 liberal 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 God's 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 express, bear not the weight of a probability, if compared to that world of witnesses in te Catholic Church they left, all attesting that the very points which the reformers relinquished had been delivered by their Forefathers, as delivered to them by theirs etc. And this so expressly, amply, and clearly, as leaves no place for criticisms, several explications, with all the train of other circumstances, which mere words seldom or never want, rendering them obnoxious to a thousand ambiguities: join 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 days, in things visibile and practical (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, prevailing even to gull the whole world to their faces in a business importing their eternal bliss; 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. join I say these two together, and I doubt not to affirm that it is most perfect nonsense, to think all the testimonies in Dr. Hs. book (subject to a thousand Grammatical, Philological, Sophistical, 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 universal 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 Universal Tradition; as a straw may incline a balance, if nothing be put in the counterpoise.  
Neither let my Adversary object, I intent 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 Universal Tradition; for he may know we hold our Faith and Government upon no other tenor. So as still the mea sure of their force must be according to the degree in which they invalidate this tenor of ours built upon both a long possession, and such an universal▪ and clear testification. Only I desire the Reader to take notice hence, what a pitiful task it is to stand answering a wordish book, which can bear no weight with any prudent man who considers the incomparable force of Universal Tradition, our only tenor: but I am necessitated to it by the weakness of many, whose wit never carried 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 tossed by our various expositions and criticisms, and liable to a thousand evasions, against the clear sense written in the hearts of mankind with most powerful motives, and to be propagated truly to their posterity under penalty of eternal 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 wits begin to own their reason, and bring it home to itself, rather than suffer it to wander in a pathless wilderness of words, and think it an endeavour more worthy a rational soul to wove well compacted Treatises by evident connexion of terms, than fruitlessly 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 nonsense.  
Thus much to give account of my obligation not to favour Mr. H. while he impugns 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 myself, and think it a great ornament to a scholar, if he know how to use it seasonably, and not wantonly show it upon all, or rather no occasion; in which Mr. H. hath very much diminished 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 rational way by some strong brain, might be the happy Mother of many rare productions. His looking into such variety of Authors deserves also its commendation; since testimonies have their degree of probation allowed them by their Governess Reason; that is, according to the degree of knowledge (or Authority subsequent to it) found in the Testifier, and the clearness from ambiguity found in the words alleged: nay rather I should esteem him more for this than all the rest, were this way of testimonies in itself much estimable, since his chief and almost only talon 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 produced, even from the best Authors, 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 sacred relation of minds, than myself) doth in a manner mediately alley me to him, and makes me desirous to flatter myself, that the agreeing in a third, should make us not disagree amongst ourselves. All these motives give him no mean place in my thoughts, and esteem: yet all these temporal considerations vanish, and he strait becomes again indifferent to me, when a quarrel about Eternity of mankind's bliss or misery is to be controverted between 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 confess withal, I am sorry, that by is own fault he occasioned 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 Catholic; not considering that Courtesy is a virtue only 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 soldiers who are to try the field about their Kings and Country's interests, to hold their sword in onehand, and hat in the other; compliment, and kiss their hands to one another, instead of striking, or by any unnatural mixture of both make a gallant show of a mock fight, preferring the care of court esy before the loss of their Cause. For the satisfaction of these I have Apologized 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 goodreason too, should I daing him only a reply in this method, for why should not an answer of any thing serve to a quodlibetical 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 levelled at S. W. follows in the sixth 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 error in Helvidius, that he took railing for eloquence. Wherefore since Mr. H. chooses 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 Relics; and weather he stood upon courtesy, when he made account he had a just occasion to show his zeal. In his Epistle to Riparius, the first he writ against Vigilantius, he hath these words: O praecidendam ling●am, etc. O tongue worthy to be cut out by Physicians, or rather, oh frantic head to be cured by them, etc. Ego vidi hoc aliquando portentum; I once saw this prodigious monster. Tacita me forsan cogitation repre hendas, etc. Perhaps thou mayest reprehend me in thy silent thought, why I inveigh against one absent: ay confesto thee my passion, I cannot hear so great sacrilege 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 eternal blindness Elymas the Sorcerer, resisting the ways of our Lord. Piety in God's behalf is not cruelty. Nor by consequence is zeal in behalf of Faith railing; if that Faith be held to have certain grounds; which only 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 Centauris and Sirens, Screech-owls and Onocrotals: job describes Leviathan and Behemoth in mystical language: the fables of the Poets tell of Cerberus, and the Stymphals, and the Erymanthian Boar, of the Nemean Lion, of Chimaera, ad manyheaded Hydra: Virgil describes Cacus; Spain hath brought to light three-shaped Geryon; France only 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 sepulchers of the martyrs are to be venerated. Insanum caput! mad or frantic fellow! Sanctas reliquias Andreae, Lucae & Timothei, apud quas Daemones rugiunt, & inhabitatores Vigilantij illorum se sentire praesentiam confitentur, The holy relics of Andrew, Luke and Timothy, at which the Devils roar, and the possessors of Vigilantius confess 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 in te plagas dissimular, in aliis confitetur: That unclean spirit which compels thee to write these things, has oftentimes been tortured with this contemptible dust (meaning the Holy Relics, which Vigilantius styled thus) yea and is now adays still tortured; and he who in thee dissembles his wounds, confesses them in others.  
But let us come to the Treatise our Adversary citys, and see how roughly S. Hierome handles Helvidius; whom Dr. H. would have him accuse in the same treatise of the selfsame fault. Sed●ne te quasi lubricus anguis evolvas, testimoniorum stringendus es vinculis, ne quer●lus sibiles; but lest, like a stippery snake, thou disentangle thyself, 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 wickedness. Quamvis sis hebes, dicere non a●debis; although thou be'st dull or blockish, yet thou darest not affirm it. Risimus in te proverbinm, Camelum vidimus saltantem: We have laughed at the old proverb in thee, We have seen a dancing Camel▪ etc. Where we see.  
First, that if S. Hierome's verdict expressed in his own manifold example be allowable, whom Dr. H hath chosen for Umpire in his matter, 'tis very lawful 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 faultiness 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 themselves, either Dr. H's cause is false, and then 'tis 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 wilful 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, than that person will be found in reason to deserve reprehension, be the cause he defends true or false, if he defend it either senselessly or insincerely.  
Secondly, these harsh expressions of S. Hieromes being due to Dr. H's forefather Vigilantius, for denying veneration to holy Relics, are due likewise upon that only 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 sins, by denying the only certain Rule of Faith, Universal Tradition, the former government 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 Relics?  
Thirdly, the Reader shall find no where in Schism Disarmed such harsh language given to Dr. H. or which (if taken in its own nature (sounds so contumeliously as this of S. Hieromes against Vigilantius is; frantic fellow, monster, prodigious monster▪ possessed with the Devil, possessed with an unclean Spirit, snake, famous for wickedness, blockhead, etc. My harshest words in comparison of these are moderate and civil▪ mine are smiling Ironies, his are stern and bitter Sarcasmes, and if I whipped Dr. H. gently with rods, S. Hierome wihpt his forefather Vigilantius with Scorpions. Whence follows that I am to be thanked by Dr. H. for my moderation, not excommunicated for my excess in reprehending him, since all those more severe expressions far outvying 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 Author he quotes for himself in this point.  
Fourthly, what a miserable weakness is it to quote this Father against me for using harsh language, who himself uses far harsher? which evidences that if this Father's authority and example be of weight in this point, as Dr. H. grants by bringing him against me for that purpose, than the roughness 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 shows that Dr. H's first Chapter, fight against the words as abstracted from the cause, as much accuses S. Hierome as me; nay much more, as his words expressed more fully his justly-caused zeal, than my more moderate pen did.  
Fifthly, abstracting from the cause, and impugning the manner of expression only, as Dr. H. does, who sees not that the Heretic 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 itself have called S Hierome's plain discovery of his faults, scoffs 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, fallen under the censures of the Church, ipso jure excommunicate, in a special sort one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unrighteous, that he shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, that this was the very Dialect which the jews used toward the true Prophets of God, that it is against the practice of S. Michael and against the spirit of weakness, peace and long-suffering, etc. As if every heretic, nay every malefactor 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 injured, 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 yourselves from schism, whether you deserved those reprehensions from your Adversary or no, and not from what your quodlibetical vein can preach to us. And till you bring evident ones, I shall ever think that S. Hierome (your own Authors here) preached 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 error in Helvidius, that he took railing for eloquence, unless he can prove that I took it so too? He knows 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 business, that it would be worth the pains of a rhetorical filing.  
Lastly, to show more and more the weakness of this Dr. S. Hieromes words of Helvidius are these; loquacitatem facundiam existimat, he thinks babbling 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 solidness, 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 pattrens 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 calumny upon a worthy person, that Charity and pity must both be summoned up to pardon him in it▪ I had upon occasion of the Evidence of our Church's Infallibility in my Schim Disaermed 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. says, his arrows are beyond all possible confute; meaning that S. W. the Author of Schism Disarmed, was the same with the Author of the Apology for Tradition) though I am certainly informed 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 gains two advantages: First he honours himself with making the world believe he had so worthy an Adversary as the Author 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 Disarmed 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 mere 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 airy testimonies, the victory over which can only entitle one to Domitian's triumph, and need more the Flyflap of a Dictionary, or turning over leaves to combat them, than 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 only on Mr. H's wilful 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 equal 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 Symptoms. What Symptoms are these, and of what? that the profusest laughter 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 pharisaical hypocrisy; were not this more compatible to Mr. H. then the other is to me? I hope than he is answered, at least in as good a manner as such toys deserve. And ere I come to finish this Treatise, I flatter myself, that even Dr. H's own Friend's will acknowledge that such is his carriage, and manner of writing, unless 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 than the common use of the latter is exacted of the Reader.   

Sect. 4.  
Dr. H's methodical 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 rudeness of my blows; which though sufficiently cleared already, yet I think myself obliged to my cause, to take notice of this methodical 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 methodical 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 eternal good injured by him, interessed my zeal to lay him open, I proposed these two parallel 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 ruins your estate by Perjury, 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 less concernment than Eternity Where any man, that is not more then half-asseep, may see the meaning is plainly this; that as the alleging that the breath is sweet justifies not the affront of spitting in one's face, nor the pretence of swearing demurely, the wrong of ruining one's 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 wits were well awake, or his charity very methodical, when he answered them. He neither goes about to grant or deny the invalidity of those pretended excuses: which only was to be done: but instead thereof makes a piece of a sermon to you, very Christianly telling you how you ought to behave yourself, 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, etc. and then lays 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 sweetness of the breath justify the affront of spitting in one's 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 justly be given it, he tells us in good sober sadness, that a man may use all lawful 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, etc. which superadds to the former error, that he mistakes the comparison or similitude, for the thing it is brought to parallel or resemble; and by his own literal acception of it, will needs accuse himself 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 called a mistake which sprung from the Will, and can hardly be fathered upon the weakest Understanding: I made it my only plea to the Reader for some blows of mine, which he might apprehend too rude, that our controversy was about things concerning men's eternal salvation; and therefore the Reader knowing that I (as all Catholics 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 publicly harmful to men's souls; hence I ended my first paragraph, that I would have very little contention with him, were the difference between us in any thing of less 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 applied; transferring the matter from the public injury to men's souls, 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 ruined some souls eternally, Christ bids us let him mine more; or whether, if the wolf worry some sheep, the shepherd ought to give him more? if not, then whether courtesy ought to have place towards such a destroyer of souls in those very writings with which he endeavours it, or rather whether it be not an obligation to show it home what he is, as far as his faultiness 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 souls carry one to hell, resist him not, but let him carry more; or if a robber climb 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 Logic? but that which follows will in part justify it.  
Is it possible one should trip so often in running over a little leaf of paper almost as intelligible as legible? Yet we have not done so: follows 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 abusive treating matters of Religion, etc. Where you see Mr. H. makes account that the abusive treating matters of Religion, which is able to plunge millions of souls into eternal damnation, is of less moment than perjury against one's temporal estate: though one who had never read Dr. H. would surely think that the charge of abusive treating matters of religion, being a business entrenching upon eternity, is much more robust, (as he calls it) than that of ruining a temporal estate by perjury; since I think there is no good Christian but holds the eternal loss of one soul redeemed with Christ's most precious blood, is of more worth than all the temporal 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 Disarmed, 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 justice, 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 Author 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, aught 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 judgement 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 pitiful spectacle Dr. H. would be, if S. W. should take the pains 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 swelled to such a formidable number, that they both deter him from that less necessary task, and he fears 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 Author of the Epistle from Brussels was the Penman of at least the first part of Schism Disarmed; and his first argument to prove it, is the kindness Schism Disarmed shows to that Epistle, affording it a very large Encomium, which he here puts down. So that first Schism Disarmed must be supposed to be writ by the Author of the Apology for Tradition because he finds there the said Apology highly commended; and then strait he concludes from the same argument that the Epistle from Brussels is the same author's also, and these positions must only hang together by the necessity of that worthy person's praising himself. If this be not to profess courtesy openly, and yet s●ily to practise the height of discourtesy, I profess myself much to seek in understanding the notions of either. But why is he imagined the Penman of but at least the first part of Schism Disarmed? Is not Schism Disarmed all the same style, or is it at all like the style of the Catholic Gentleman's Letter? Sure, no man who ever understood what a style meant can conjecture either, unless he had wifully a mind to calumniate without any ground of reason.  
His second argument to prove the Author 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 Author, because of the affinity between their writings, I conceived the grounds of that Epistle so well laid, 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 concerns us jointly: 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 Replies and Answers, which yet need never answer to those names. The deaf Country-maid who being asked which was the way to London, replied, a poak full of plums, gave an answer; but it is another question whether that answer were either pertinent or satisfactory. As for the Author 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 Catholic Gentleman consisted of 165. pages, this Answer to Schism Disarmed of 303. yet this latter (Answer▪ p. 9) he calls an Appendix to the former, and gleaning after the rake: as if Appendices used to be twice as big as the principal; or that husbandmen used to rake armefulls, and leave cartload 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 employment so strict, as not to hear of it, is only his misapprehension; since I assure him Schism Disarmed was out of my hands, long ere his Reply to the Catholic 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 that 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 sum 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 terms 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 than shall be this, that The first pretenders to reform in the point of the Pope's Authority in England, found England actually subject to that Authority in Ecclesiastical matters. This Ground carries its Evidence in its 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 laid 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 acknowledged it; whether it were rightly pretended or injustly remains to be inferred: which the Dr. mistaking, and not distinguishing between possession and right, says we beg the question; when we only 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 Universal Church, and not of a Patriarchate only▪ This Ground is no less evident than the former, by our adversaries confession; since this is the Authority they impugn as unlawful, and from which they reform; which last word implies the actual acknowledgement 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 Patriarches and pretended to be constituted by Christ himself.  
The third Ground is, that This Papal Authority actually over the Ecclesiastical affairs in England was held then as of Christ's Institution, and to have been derived to the Pope, as he was Successor to S. Peter. The truth of this appears by the known confession of the than Roman Church, and the selfsame 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 itself, and even by the carriage of S. Aust in the Monk, and the Abbot of Bangor, expressed in that counterfeited testimony alleged 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 itself 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; whereas, 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 man's understanding cannot be changed from any opinion or belief, 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 Politics 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, than 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 Country, they clearly agree in the same favour for Possession. I shall only instance in one common case. If I convey Black●cre to I. S. for the life of I. N. and after wards I. S. die, 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 rightful 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 balance. 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 undisturbed by the contrary claim, would absolutely bar it. And here I should take myself 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 follows, that, since Possession of Authority must stand till sufficient Reasons be alleged 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 only stands in examining those Reasons which oppose its lawfulness, since the sufficiency of them clears 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 only 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 confessed by themselves; if there be no reasons to be examined, he is convinced by his own words to be a Schismatic, 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 usurped. The reasons for this are fetch't by parity from that which went before & only the proportions added. For in moving a Body in nature, the force of the cause must be proportioned to the gravity, settledness, and other extrinsical impediments of the Body to be moved, otherwise nothing is done. In morals, the motives of dissent ought to be more powerful than those for the former continuance in assent, otherwise a soul as a soul (that 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 showed. 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 Universal Tradition for its tenor, an Authority held of great efficacy by our very Adversaries: the rejecting it, if groundless, was known to be an heinous Schism, and to unknit the whole frame of the Church'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 its own nature probable (for except rigorous Evidence no reason can be more) and no way in its self obliging the Understanding 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 perfect 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 themselves, but compared to the tenor of our Government, Universal Tradition, vanish into air; 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 selfconceited pride, and desperate precipitancy.  
In prejudice of them is objected, that heretofore they held that form 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 Universal Tradition, which stood against them in this point▪ since oral Tradition) of which we speak (was pleaded by Catholics for this point, but never so much as pretended 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 only the Authority of the Church they left considered, 'tis impossible they should reform, unless they should conclude millions of Doctors 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 judgement, 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 usurped. And if the first Reformers could have no just and lawful, that is, evident Ground to begin their disobedience to that Government, neither can their Proselytes and Successors 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 believe that this Authority was usurped. This is proved by the case of the first Reformers now explicated, whose words could not in any reason be imagined evident against such an universal 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 usurped▪ nor yet from oral Tradition, since their immediate Forefathers delivered 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 persuaded 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 versed in Scriptures, Fathers & Councils, & yet held all these most consonant●to the Catholic doctrine, though the polemical vein of the Schools, which left nothing not throughly ventilated, gave them ample occasion to look into them. Add 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 nonsensical, which surely they would, had they deemed the other a perfect and rigorous Evidence.  
From hence follows, 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 qualified with so many circumstances to confirm and establish it. Though I must confess, if they could demonstrate by evident and unavoidable connexion of terms from some undeniable authority that this Government was unjust, their Understandings 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 allege 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 flourished, testifying the same also in their General Counsels: all which by their own aknowlegedment was found in the Church they left.  
The eihtgh Ground is, that The proofs alleged 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 allege are testimonies, that is words capable of divers senses, as they shall be diversely played upon by wits, Scholars, and Critics; and it is by experience found that generally speaking, their party and ours give several 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 Counsels, yet expressed 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 than 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 moral estimation a thousand to one in the means of understanding aright these testimonial proofs; and then I take not that to have any moral 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 fortified 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 only make use at present of this Consideration; that if it be impossible that all the now-fathers' of Families in the Catholic Church, dispersed in so many nations, should conspire to tell this palpablely to their Children, that twenty years ago 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 years upwards till the Apostles, by the same reason by which it holds in the last twenty; than it follows evidently, that what was told us to have been held twenty years ago, 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 Faithful: for as long as she pretends only to this Ground, the difficulty is equal in each twenty years, 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 Ancestors,) 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 Ancestors, or no. The former relapses into the abovesaid impossibility; or rather greater, that they should conspire to tell a lie in the only Ground of their Faith, and yet hold (as they did) their Faith built upon that Ground to be truth: the latter position must discredit itself in the very terms, 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 only 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 testified by experience to be disputable between us, can bear the force even of a probability against the universal acknowledgement 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 Authors 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 myself 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 its own force, as applied to the nature of mankind, an infallible certainty of its 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 Catholic Church and her Champions ought in reason to stand upon Possession. This is already manifested from the fifth Ground, since Possession is of its 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 tenor, Possession attested by Tradition, and fall upon the troublesome and laborious method of citing Authors, in which they will accept of none but whom they list; and, after all our pains and quotations, directly refuse to stand to their judgement: 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 errors.  
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, until 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 appears how meanly skilled 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 Disarmed; whereas that Treatise being designed for an Answer to his Book of Schism, had no obligation to prove my tenet, but only to show that his arguments were unconclusive. Hence also is discovered 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 Keys given him particularly, by solving our places of Scripture for that tenet: where (besides other faults in that process, which Schism Disarmed told him of,) he commits three absurdities. First, in putting himself upon the side of the Defendant; whereas 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 only in showing that illation weak, but leaves it indifferent whether the thing in itself be so or no, or evidently deducible from some other Argument. Thirdly, he falsely supposes that we build our Faith upon those places of the written words, as explicable by wit, not by Tradition, and the practice of our Church, whereas we only own the delivery from father to son as the Ground of all our belif, and make this the only 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 ploughed 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 than it were unworthy the wisdom of the Eternal Father, that our Blessed Saviour jesus Christ, coming to plant à Church, should not provide for its 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 than 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 tenor, 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 Usurpation, which could not in reason but draw after it a train of more visible consequences, and be accompanied 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 Authors 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 its self, and in its 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 discountenanced by its confessed and known original, which makes it not capable of itself to pretend that Christ instituted it, unless it be helped 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 anciently settled in a long peace before our pretended invasion: and if they can evidence this, and that we usurped, than 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 affairs 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 only 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 Possessor; but an Usurper, an intruder, an invader, disobedient, rebellious, and (in our case) Schismatical.  
I am not ignorant that Dr. H. rawly affirms that the Pope's Authority began in Phocas his time, but I hope no Reader that cares much for his salvation, will take his word for honest, till he show undeniable and evident matters of fact, concerning the beginning, progress, Authors, abetters, opposers, of that newly introduced 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 enlinsked, and what consequences followed upon those changes; together with all the circumstances which affect visible and extern actions. 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 only 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 crept 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 looked 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 only Fact, do not necessarily conclude a Rig●t. This is evident; First, because testimonies conclude no more than then express: but they express only the Fact: therefore they conclude only 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 imagined 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 meddling 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 alleging those which expressed only Fact. Frivolous therefore it is to bring historical proofs of Fact upon the stage, in a dispute about Right; since, taken alone, they make only a dumb show, and can act no part in that Controversy: for the very alleging that some of these faults might intervene, disables such premises from inferring a Right. Neither ought Mr. H. (which, I suppose for want of Logic, 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 Premises 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 senselessly 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 Church's Laws; whence follows not that the Princes made those Laws by their own Authority, but that they obeyed and executed what the Church had ordered: For unless the Church's Ordinances should be put into temporal laws, which oblige to their observance by awe 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 reclaim against them: which would both injure the Authority of the Church, and scandalise the community of the Faithful. This therefore being of such an absolute conveniency for the Church, we need not wonder that the temporal power (of Christians) should put the Church's orders into temporal Laws, and execute their performance; nor consequently can testimonies of such execution and laws, prejudice the Pope ' s Right, since Catholic Governors 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 Catholics, that Kings may exercise some Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by the concession of the Church, and yet not prejudice thereby the Pope's Universal Pastourship. This is most visible from the unanimous acknowledgement of all Catholic Authors, and verified 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 originized from the Church's precedent orders, or else he concludes nothing at all against us. Here I desire the Reader & Mr. H. may jointly take notice, that the testimonies himself alleges 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 happened 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 means to make the Clergy & Universities assent to his novelty: otherwise had either the Temporal Government awed them, the Pastors of souls consented to inform the people right, or the Universities (the Seminaries of learning) conspired to write against that innovation, in all likehood it would have given a stop to its proceeding, at least have hindered its 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 malefactor 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 lays down. Nay more, himself disgraces his own Narration by confessing (p. 136.) that the Clergy were inclined to subscribe by the fear of a praemunire: and the question about the Pope's Right in England being debated in the Universities, he says only p. 135. that it was generally defined in the negative; (that is when the King's party prevailed) yet he omits that the King's lust first moved him to think of Schismatizing, and his final repentance of that Act; which show that the first spring which moved the whole Engine was not purity of conscience, but the impurest and basest of passions.  
The positions, which I have laid 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 said by Dr H. of a force and clearness comparable to that of our Possession, and that of oral Tradition, which we ever claimed for our Tenor; from which also they disclaimed, when they reformed in this point of the Pope's Supremacy. So that little more remains to be performed, 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 answered, 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 replied upon. Nor do I fear this task, though ingrateful in its self and less necessary, will be void 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 Disarmed; and his wilful avoiding 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 expressed 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 skirmished in particular Controversies, than bid battle to the main Body of the Church, etc. Upon which Dr. H. not aware that upon every new occurrence, or effect, the admirative faculty first plays its parts, and stirs up the reason to disquisitiveness for the cause of it (such reflections lie 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 themselves 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, unheard of news and prodigy, putting news and prodigy in different letters, that himself might be thought an Oedipus, who had unriddled my imagined aenigma. But since any thing which is uncouth and disorderly justly stirs up admiration, what necessity is there that Dr. H. and his Friends should hap to do all things so orderly, wisely, and reasonably, that poor S. W. (whom he confesses here p. 10. l. 36 not to have been of his Council in his designment) might not be allowed to have some admiration at first, at their mysterious imprudence.  
But he will needs undertake to allay my admiration (though I was much better satisfied 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, endeavoured to defame them out of a persecuted profession. Where first I assure him, that many of those who have of late become Catholics, 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 turned Quakers, or such like kind of things; those who have run back to the lap of their Mother the Holy Catholic 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 wished 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 only affirmed, that they heretofore seemed more willing to skirmish in particular controversies, than bid battle 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 impugns his own mistake, fathered upon S. W. very strongly by nominating some few books upon that subject; (Ans. p. 11. l. 2.) pitying himself that he should 〈◊〉 set to prove, what none said but himself: and truly I pity him too. But are not there near an hundred times that number, who have skirmished against us in particular Controversies? I hope then this will serve to justify those moderate words of mine, that they seemed 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 Chimaeras. 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 croaked.  
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 asked, 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 leg left them to stand on; and why they should hope then rather to get the upper hand, when they lie flat along themselves, as if Antaeus-like they were stronger by falling.  
Again, had many been induced by reason to return to the Catholic 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 Catholic Converts; so that had not S. W. found out a reason, to rid himself of his some admiration, he might still have remained in it for any thing M. H. hath produced.  
Upon 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 only intended (as is evident) that he went about to plead the reasonableness of that which I (who am the Defendant) do, and must hold for Schism, and consequently may nominate it so, that is of his breaking from our Church'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 Schismatics, or their sect Schism, feign that I say they call themselves so, he might by this art make S. W. a monstrous liar, 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 aim of the Church'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 says, a Schism armed with might 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 Schismatics, and avoid their Communion in Etern actions belonging to God's worship, as God's Church ever accustomed; not scaring to denounce and preach to them in plain terms that they are Schismatics, and cut off from the Church. Neither is this against Charity, since, (Schism being such an heinous and damnable sin) Charity avouches, nay makes it an obligation to manifest Schismatics to be such; that they who have fallen 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 opened the earth to swallow Core Dathan, and Abiron. Nor is it against prudence, since every one knows the permitting the weaker sort to communicate with enemies in those very circumstances which may endanger them, is the only way to ruin any Government either Spiritual or Temporal.  
At lest why should they not dare (had they Grounds to bear them out) to do the same as the Catholics did, during the time of their greatest persecution under the Protestant Government; that is, let them be known to be Schismatics, and make the people abstain in divine matters from their contagious Communion. But the confessed 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 compliment. When he talks here piously of the Romanists sanguine try method, sure he hath forgotten that ever Priests were hanged, drawn, and quartered for their Faith at Tyburn, 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 tears of blood. Answ. p. 13.  
The next Section begins with the rehearsal of my reason, why no colourable pretence can be alleged by the Protestants why they left us, but the same will hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them; which I expressed thus: For that we pressed 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 pressed upon their Quondam brethrens. Which words though as moderately and modestly expressing the matter as could be invented, yet the Reader shall see what a character the Doctor's 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 Doctor's Discourse or mine went a rambling when we writ. The tenor of my Argument ad hominem, was this: The falsities which you pretend we pressed upon you, were either acknowledged by you to have been fundamental, or not-fundamental, that is, tolerable: that you acknowledged them fundamental you will not say, since falsity in a fundamental ruins 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 pressed upon you by us, than Copes or Surplices, which you pressed upon them: therefore you can allege no reason why you left us, but they may allege 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 aught 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 discursive power were sober, when he reeled into such an answer.  
First, he wilfully puts a wrong meaning upon those words false Fundamentals, as if by them I meant things which we only, 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 pressed them to believe false Fundamentals, in this sense, that is such things as we held Fundamentals: whereas 'tis 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, etc.) that I meant such points as they accounted Fundamentals. And when he hath thus voluntarily mistaken me, he tails 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 skilled in the game of reason; though in that of citations, where he can both shuffle and cut, that is, both allege and explicate them, with Id ests, as he pleases, he can pack the cards handsomely, and show more crafty tricks than ever did Hocus Pocus. And if any after all this can think I have wronged Mr. H. in affirming he is a weak reasoner, himself shall by'r 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 only that Dr. H. and his Friends would not say that our Church pressed them to believe false Fundamentals. Is it any wrong to them, or foul play in S. W. to affirm that Dr. H. and his Friends will not speak a contradiction? Himself (such is his humility) says it is; affirming here, that when S. W. undertakes for him and his Friends, that they will not say that the Romanists have pressed 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 itself, when none bushes 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 always stumbles most in the plainest way, will needs quibble in the word true, and S. W. must bear the blame for grossly 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 falsehood in Fundamental destroys the very Being of a Church. This being so, I shall beg Dr. H's pardon if I catechise him a little in point of reason (in which his Cause makes him a mere 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 falsehood, 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 terms (Answ. p. 15.) that she is not unchurched, because she holds the true Foundation laid by Christ, but offends by enlarging and superadding; but he must show why the Catholics, who hold no point of Faith, but solely upon their Church's infallibility, if that Ground be false (that is be none) as he says, 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 only 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 tenor 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 counterposed tolerable ones, that is such as they esteemed not-fundamental, which I therefore called tolerable, because they account these neither to touch the Foundation of Faith, as building or destroying; such as he acknowledged in the foregoing Paragraph our pretended supper additions to be, saying that the dross doth not annibilate the Gold. It being therefore plain that falsehoods 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 ruins not Faith, nor the essence of a Church) and says 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 Understanding but the foresaid Evidence, their pretended obligation in Conscience to disaccept them is convinced to spring from weakness of passion, not from force of reason.  
I added, that those points more deserved the Church should command their observance, than Copes or Surplices, etc. And though Mr. H. knows very well, that one of those points was the fundamental Ground of all Faith in the Church they left, and Copes etc. 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 adds 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 Governors 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 Governor taxes, than to rebel absolutely against him? the Doctor's Logic says it is; since obstinacy, according to him, is greater in resisting commands in things indifferent. 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 ado. But to return; since it was our Church'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 happed to be mistaken, no less than most palpable and noonday 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 remains still the Fundamental one, that he hath said nothing at all to the point of reason in it, but only mistaken each particular line of it. I alleged as my reason why they dealt not seriously against their own Desertours, because no colourable pretence could possibly be alleged 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 denied 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 denied 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 alleges none, nor goes about to allege any; but as if he were dividing his Text, plays upon my words in particular, neglecting the import of them altogether.  
He says indeed it is against their conscience to admit those other supper 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 rags of Rome, that Organs are Babylonish Bagpipes, and all the rest scandalous, and superstitious inventions: Still they are equal 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 'tis tyranny to press it upon him, the Church may not oblige him to believe that Christ is God; Dr. H. hath pleaded his cause jointly 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 allege no colourable pretence which may not be alleged by the other Sects.  
What if we should add 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 pressed those points upon them; but they confess their uncertain, and could proceed upon no better than probable Grounds when they pressed 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, only a confessed probability stood against them, which gave them just licence to descent, 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 Understandings to assent to them: if you erred, a pray acknowledged Infallibility strengthened 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 only 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 only, 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 Reforms chanced to err, (which the bare probability of your Faith confess't by yourselves, in this case makes more than likely (than your contrary position ruin'd all Faith and Government, since the Church you disobeyed held no other Ground of Faith or Church Government, save only those you re●ected and disacknowledged, to wit, her own Infallibility, and the Pope's Authority. Again, if you happened 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 souls, and universally destructive to all mankind, and their means of attaining eternal bliss, must your disclaiming and publicly, renouncing both these be? none of which can be objected to the Puritans by you. So evidently true were my words, that no colourable pretence can possibly be alleged 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 only played mistakingly and nonsensically 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 pity him, or any man else who takes much pains to no purpose; though I pity 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 show of justice 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 scattered discourses, are things acknowledged by both parties, and were very tedious and dull to me. What he adds, that he will not disturb me when I speak truth, unless he shall discern some part of his arguing concerned, is a very pretty jest; intimating that he stands in preparation of mind to oppose even Truth itself, if it stand in his way, or his arguing be concerned in it, and not vindicated in his former Reply. A sincere person! Hour, let him only grant that what he vindicates not, but leaves untouched, 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 powerful way of arguing by Ifs, and how he defends himself for mincing the Father's words  
THe Fathers alleged by Mr. H. attested that no just cause could be given of Schism; whence he infers (of Schism, p. 10.) that the causes and motives of Schism are not worth producing, or heeding in this controversy. The Catholic Gentleman and S. W. both expressed their dislike of this inference; the Doctor pretends to vindicate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it, as he pedantically calls it, and refers me to his Reply for his reasons: to which I shall both give a solution, and at once lay open the nature of Schism, 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 jointly acknowledge a vice of the first magnitude) if taken in its primary signification, to which our circumstances determine it, includes for its 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 itself 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 means only 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 itself so bad, but might be done, could there be assigned motives and reasons, truly representing it better to attempt it. Now our alwise 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 imagined sufficient to justify the rejecting its Government; since neither any private injury is comparable to such an universal good, nor can it happen that any miscarriage can be so public as to force its 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 acknowledge the Church's Government to have been 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, alleging 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 its 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 happened to be Schismatical.  
Now then let us see, whether my Adversaries inference be good, that, because Schism can have no just causes for its parents, therefore Dr. H. in treating a Controversy 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 Schismatics; than it were to no purpose for him to allege causes and motives, since all men know that no just cause can be possibly alleged 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 Schismatic, he must give account why he does that action, and show that that action is not truly Schism; which cannot be done without discussing reasons and motives, if common practice 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? justly therefore did the Catholic Gentleman affirm it to be a pure contradiction: for that a confessed 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 Rebel, 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 says) 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, 'tis 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 show that this action of the Church of England makes not her Schismatical nor her Sons Schismatics. 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 acknowledge. By which he would persuade 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 mind, (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 its 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 hover indifferently in the air to be now first determined, without taking notice of the stability and force our tenet had from the long possession. And this handsome trick he gently 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 imagine 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 than the supposition itself: 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 allege just (that is) evident reasons why they thought her Government an usurpation, than they did not deserve it, and so she could not excommunicate them; if they did not, and yet would subtract themselves from her obedience, than they deserved it, and were justly excommunicated. Can any man doubt of this, or impose such a piece of known nonsense (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 examine 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 show that I speak of any interior or legal Authority; which if he cannot, 'tis 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 Subjects, if they deserved it; for this is all my words signified, and is so plain of itself, 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 Governors 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 says, 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 great error: 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 questioned this before-unquestionable, and re●ected this before-received Authority, must bring reasons why they did so, and proofs why they deemed it usurped. The question therefore in this pre●ent debate devolves to this; whether the proofs Dr. H. produces be convincingly evident against a possession so qualified, as is before declared: if they fall short of that force, eo ipso he and his Friends are concluded Schismatics, for relinquishing without just motives an Authority, whose possession is justly presumable to have come from Christ; if they be perfect Evidences, than 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 exception, of the Romanists, or his own stating the question, 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, etc. is another question; for which sequel I would not contend with them, if the premises could be possibly evinced. However, if we usurped, it was not lately, but a thousand years ago: But that our Church shall in that case be schismatical, (as he here says) 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 Unity in the Church, if no such Unity can be found, as it cannot in that mould he hath cast Christianity in, by making each Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Independent, or self-governed; 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 begged on either side, and hereafter he complains of me grievously for the same fault I am sorry to see M. H. so ignorant in Logic, that he mistakes the most ordinary things in disputing. Let him know then that a Defendant, as a Defendant, cannot be said 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 consequent 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 till he be nonplussed, 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 Logic 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, 'tis 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 sat 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 Governors in the Romish See, who (if you will trust him) without all cause deny Communion without remorse or relenting, not only to them, but to many other Church's 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 Schismatics and Heretics; and never to readmit them till they repented their lapse, and did fruits worthy of penance? I grant therefore that the Romish Governors 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; etc. she values not their number, nor yet their situation: if they grow scabbed with self opinionated novelties, or disobedience, they must be separated from the sounder flock; nor ever be readmitted, 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, etc. 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 virtue there is in the particle If: only we may take leave to propose a parallel to it, that as he who intends to dine on larks, & prepares all things necessary, without any greater security than, If the s●y should fall, may in all likelihood miss his meal; so in greater probability must Dr. H. fail of his conclusion, which relies upon a conditional If, grounded only 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 little they think of his Church, under that notion, he would con them little thanks for their prayers. They never intended to pray for the peaceful 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 Church's peace with the rest, and in courteous requital retains the favourable 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 go 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 rendered 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, expressed 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, alleging 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 rendered, 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 alleges 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 equal Thirdly, if Dr. H. please to rub up afresh his forgotten Logic, 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 well stands, that one, or some few, may be greater: Therefore it is manifest that he minced S. Austin. Lastly, whereas he says he assumed not to affirm more than his Authorities did induce, that there was none greater, is the strangest lapse of all: before he only minced 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, applied to remedy his Disarmer's too great haste: 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 rendering the absolute tenor of them, Nulla potest, etc. by the softer language of, It is very hard if not impossible, to receive such an injury from the Governors, etc. To clear himself, he asks me first why I took no notice of his ill rendering Schismatis pernicies. I answer, that it is not necessary to score up all his faults; it suffices to note what I conceived most needful. 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 only, and make up the greater part of Readers, Thirdly, he says he was careful not to go beyond the limits of the testimonies. I grant it, and only find fault that he was over-careful, so as to fall short of their just sense. Fourthly, he tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both in Scripture and other Authors, is rendered 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 injury sufficient to excuse Schism, evidently is consistent with this sense, that, it is doubtful whether some few injuries may not be sufficient for that end; and than if the some of these last words do 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, etc. 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 only affirmed (Schism Disarmed, p. 3.) that he seemed 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 will 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 Father's 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 rendered S. Austin's words à communione orbis terrarum, from the Universal or truly Catholic Church of Christ; as if he were afraid lest God's Church might perhaps be thought untruly Catholic. Of which he says the reasons is visible, because the Church of Rome is by her Advocates styled the Catholic Church. But do not others call her so besides her own Advocates? do not even our very enemies (forced thereunto by custom, which makes words proper) give us that appellation, unless design cross their free and natural expression? Ask in London where a Catholic lives, and see whether they will show you the house of a Roman Catholic, or no. Should a Pursuivant meet Dr. H. and ask him if he were a Catholic, I doubt not but his answer would be negative, unless design against us made him deliver himself otherwise. Since than we only 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 Catholic; seeing that according to him, no Church can be universally called such, which is not truly such. The sum then of Dr. H's supererogating truly, is; that though all the world in their free expressions call us only Catholics, (that is, sons of the Catholic Church) yet all speak untruly, but himself and a few of his brethren; who also speak truly only 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 only 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 Confessor 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 Catholic Gentleman noted by the way, that Dr. H. slightly passed over the distinction between Heresy and Schism, which was necessary to be expressed 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 only 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 only one branch of it. Now his first excuse why he passed it over so slightly (only naming the word distinguished, 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 Treatise. His next is, that his method led him to it, to treat of it, Chap. 8. whereat 'tis 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 nonsense of his first book is entailed upon these also; and that that Dish in the Stationer's bill of fare must be cooked up again here by Mr. H. to give the Reader a second surfeit.   

Sect. 9  
How Dr. H. defends his famous Criticism about the Heath pael-like verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 covered; but with so many pitiful 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 signified, and affixed to it by Ecclesiastical use, or present circumstances, not to what the word in itself requires, nor to what it is beholden to Grammar for.  
His second mistake (which I pardoned 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 designed to supply another signification, he flies off, and says he meant 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 called 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 Voices and Conjugations, no other can be imagined than this, that a Voice relates to the signification, a Conjugation to a diversity in some letter or syllable. This being so, that expression is proper which signify each in its 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, Voices and Coniugations were jumbled, as the Doctor's words now cited justify.  
His fifth mistake is, that the Printer's evident error in putting eight votes for eight voices, is the unconceivable lapse (as he calls 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 only, but the right word voices twice, so immediately next it, that it could not possibly leave it undiscovered; 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 pains, 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 little purpose? But every thing delights most in its 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 forgetful Adversary of mine was fit to defend in the foregoing page that there might be but four; 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 Voices; 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 distinguished from a Voice, and yet in both those languages no verb runs through all the Conjugations, but through Voices only; 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 Schoolboy knows it: sure these Schoolboys must have Dr. H. for their Schoolmaster. I am sure Will. Lily would have whipped his Scholars 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, etc. instancing in Gaudeo, fido, audeo, fio, soleo, moereo, which if he account actives from their manner of flection, (besides his old error in the nature of a voice) he may take notice that their preterperfect, from which more tenses are form than from the present, is altogether passive; if from their sense, let him tell me what Gaudeor, fior, etc. 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 Latin 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. Lily teaches his boys, that if it cannot take r 'tis 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) than he again makes it partake of a passive sense, since to signify an action as received in the agent, is to signify an action mixed 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 form of these actives; those that signify an action (or in manner of an action) of the same thing upon itself, partake of both, and are neuters; and hence they may be rendered either actively, or passively, I stand, or, I am standing, I run, or, I am running, etc. 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 only 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 only 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 insults, 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 unreconcilable with common Compassion. Well; S W. may have many Adversaries, but never shall he meet with so tenderhearted a man, who is mightily afraid to hurt him, when he never comes near touching him. If he drew any blood, 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 error) is his instancing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for parallels of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to be of the nature of Hithpael. I answer, not only these he alleges, 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 Hithpael, which hath this always of its own Grammatical force, without being beholding to circumstances. Again, the nature of Heath pael is to signify expressly as much as two words in Latin or Greek, as I instanced in Schism Disarmed, 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 error is, that he runs to the quality of the thing signified, 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. jude rightly take a Schismatic for one who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, divides himself from the Church; but can he show me that the Church or S. jude or any, except himself, tell us that this kind of reciprocal signification accrues to that word by any Grammatical observation from the passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or that taken in its own nature it is not indifferent to signify, I am cut by another, as, by myself, till some circumstance determine it? or can any show, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and so of the rest) is in its own passive nature of any farther signification, than barely I am saved, leaving it to be determined by other words, whether by myself, or some other; that is having of itself no reciprocal sense? Unless 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 some 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 Schismatic in the Ecclesiastical use hath for its total signification one who is divided voluntarily (by himself) from the Church; and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if the circumstances apply its native indifferency to that kind of sense, must signify) I am divided voluntarily (or by myself) from the Church. Now to speak of the word itself, it neither signifies I am divided voluntarily, nor yet, I am divided from another thing, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that) much less, I am divided by myself 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. only 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 criticising Grammatically, I would let him see what consequence followed of it; to wit, that since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was (as he said) of the nature of Hithpael, and signified reciprocal action on himself, himself, the Schismatic, 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 Schismatic 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 edged 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 unanswered, which most concerned the point. To which had he applied his mistaking faculty, I doubt not but we might have had a dozen, if not thirteen for good measure.  
Thus much of Dr. H's Hithpael like Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his eagle-eyed Criticism upon it, which will make his fame long-lived amongst all future Grammarians. What follow in the next Paragraph, granting his clients to be Schismatics, if I can prove their voluntary recession from us, is already proved by his own clear confession, Schism Disarmed, 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 Governors, being men, may possibly err, and excommunicate the innocent; I answered, that unless he could evidence an immunity from error in the Governed, as well as pretend a liableness in the Governors, the opinion of right aught to stand on the Governors' side, and that a probable motive could not sufficiently warrant the Subjects 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 motives 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 appears, he either leaps out of the lists all affrighted, 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 Governors might err, which was my only business at that time? If so, than 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 Governor. May not any Rebel say the same, pretend no Right in the Governor, and say truly, that he was not actually and the 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 reject the Pope's Authority; that the Pope's power was usurped, etc. and then hiding his head under these thin leaves, he concludes himself perfectly safe till we make it appear that we were Governors, and they faulty. So that by the Doctor's Logic, a boy, though undoubtedly held the son of such a Father, may not be whipped 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 Governor (let it be when it will) you were under him, and held his Children and Subjects; your disobedience is most notorious, and confessed and that not a mere 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 begged the question a jot, although he be the opponent; 'tis his privilege to say what he will, every one knows 'tis 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 Schismatic in rejecting an Authority for so many Ages acknowledged certain, upon slight and fantastical 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. 'Tis strange, that the same men who nominate us Papists for only acknowledging the Pop's Authority, should call them also Papists who disacknowledge it. But perhaps he means they were roman-catholics; if so, then let me ask, does he mean that they were of our Profession ere they renounced it? so was every one that turned Knave or Rebel, an honest man and true Subject formely, else he had never turned 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 remained Catholics 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 Schismatics, and Heretics, not Catholics, and whatever tenets they may be pretended ro retain still, were not now Faith but Opinion only; the sole certain Ground of Faith, Oral Tradition, being abandoned and rejected: unless the Doctor will say that they had yet Catholic Faith in them, who denied all the ground of Catholic 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 malefactor. Thirteen shameful and wilful weaknesses in answering Mr. Knot's position that we may lawful'y forsake the Church'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 Windmill 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 millstones and huge logs towards the making this Windmill of his?  
My affirmation was that (Schism Disarmed, 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 Church's side. Hence I deduced some consequence, how his doctrine excused those malefactors and their three pretended Schismatics. In answer he calls this a manifest perversion of his most innocent expressions, because afterwards he says, that such a weak-conscienced erroneous man is in several respects crimtnous, etc. I reply, I do not forbid him to speak contradictions; for I perceive by his little amendment he is not likely to take my friendly counsel: 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 Windmill.  
His first contribution is, that there is nothing alleged by him, where he pretends conscience in not obeying us, but the very same will much better serve any malefactor; 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 only 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 reasons plead for the other malefactors.  
His third contribution is, that since on the one side he tells us it is hard to affirm that a man in an error 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-conscienced man may consequently have a rational Ground to remain in his false opinion, at lest cannot be obliged to contrary belief, but thanks Dr. H. heartily for pleading for his lawful continuance in his beloved error. Or if he be scrupulous of his error, and Dr. H. afford him no perfectly-certain grounds to right it, but that (as he says here, and his Grounds make good) he is sure to sin which way soever he turns; 'tis likely Mr. H's good doctrine may make the poor fellow come strait 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 error (in some case) on the Church'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 lawful in disobeying that Authority, which could not oblige him in reason to believe what herself knew not, but might be mistaken and err in. Nay more, he very putting the Error on the Church's side takes away all obligation to believe her; and by consequence justifyes all erroneous consciences. Thus is the Windmill finished at Dr. H's proper cost and charges, although he says 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-beggars to him, wheresoever he meets them. The first is, whether all assent of the Understanding 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 Successor 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 perilous edged tools to meddle with, and cut the throat of error 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 terms 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 affirmed, that we may forsake the Church's Communion in case she be fallible and subject to error. Dr. H. inferred hence, (of Schism p. 20.) that it was lawful (if this were true) to forsake Communion of all but Angels and Saints and God in heaven: his reason was, because only 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 tacit 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 applied) are no other than efficacious motives, & efficacioully proposed, to make him forsake temporary and fleeting Goods, and embrace Intellectual & Eternal ones, (his only Felicity,) with which the affections to the former are inconsistent: again, since these motives cannot be efficaciously proposed to the Universality 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 void, for as much as concerned 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 increasing, 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 Successors told them they had received from the Apostles themselves. For it was not possible so many, dispersed in several Nations, should conspire to a palpablely, in a visible, practical and known thing, concerning their eternal Interest. They had nothing else now to do, but to attest what they had received: Christ being unanimously acknowledged 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 increased 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 Church's conspiring to err in attesting things most palpable and most important; which we call her Infallibility Upon 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 Successor, and that the renouncers of his Authority are Heretics and Schismatics, since this sole-certain Rule of all Faith, Oral Tradition, now shown to be infallible, recommended it to us as delivered from immediate Forefathers, 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 only 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 Forefathers. 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 Church'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 herself of that to which she would oblige others, that is, unless she be infallible in teaching attested truths? To answer (as he does, Reply, p. 13.) she may oblige others to believe, though fallible, as long as she is not actually in error, is the greatest piece of folly imaginable, for still the question recurres, Is she infallibly certain that she is not actually in error? 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 Unity 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 Commonwealth 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 one's self exteriorly, as in temporal Commonwealths; 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 itself equally liable to sin and error, 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 selfsame kind of sin? Are there causes laid 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 lie, as that they had been thus tauhgt by their Ancestor, 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, etc. and many other Governors have fallen into error: but can he show me that all the Governors of the Church, or half of them have erred, or indeed can possibly err 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 succeeding Governors, to stand with their errableness.  
Hi fourth weakness is, that like those who are making a pitiful excuse for a bad cause, his unfledged 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 err as well as sin;) that in proportion any multitude or assembly might (the major, and so prevalent part of them) consent in an error, as well as in a vice. I ask, can that whole multitude consent in a palpable error in things visible, or no? If they can, what means that grumbling parenthesis of the mayor part, and to what end or purpose was it brought, since all might err? If they cannot all err in such a case, but the major part only, 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 pitiful shifts?  
His fifth weakness is, that whereas he affirmed only Saints and Angels in heaven, and God to be infallible, and I instanced (Schism Disarmed, p. 19) in some on earth, to wit the Apostles; whom I alleged 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 heaven, for there undoubtedly they are Tell me seriously, good Reader, and without smiling, is not Dr. H. worthy to be reckoned the eighth wiseman; 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 err 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 error, when he said that none but those in heaven were infallible: For sure if those could not err (as he grants) in doing these offices performed by them while they were on earth, than 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 little purpose, as his custom is) he adds first, that they were not infallible in all sorts of things. What man in his wits ever pretended it or imagined, but that the Apostles might count money 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 sense 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 tacitly counterfeits us to hold that their Infallibility proceeds as from its 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.) he makes head against, are only of those two said acts, in which he 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 error, to signify, that it shall undoubtedly be preserved from falling into error, and that not only from this or that sort of error, but indefinitely from all: As if the controversy between Mr. Knot and him were not only 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 Logic 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, only from this, because Mr. Knot and S. W. said the Church is infallible and not subject to error, 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 impugns 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 Faith; when he drew near the point in question, to wit, whether the depositary (or Church) was infallible and could not err 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 Catholics and Protestants? Good Mr. H. speak out, and tell us whether the depositary can mistake or no in delivering needful points: if she can, where is the certainty of our Faith? if she cannot, than 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, etc. 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 privilege; since the doctrine of Fore father's 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 grandchildren had seen what was held and practised in the Grandfather's 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 only 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, than 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 renounced it when they renounced the Authority it recommended, and ran to other Grounds, private interpretations of Scripture, and odd 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 abovesaid, he says the Church is not considered as a society of believers endowed with any inerrable privilege, but as a number of witnesses, etc. 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 Believers in respect of their progenitors, and Witnesses in respect of their posterity. No wiser is his assertion that nothing is here contested from the Authority of their judgements. For if he means, the points which they contest are not founded on their judgements, 'tis most certainly true; since (speaking of points of Faith) they are truths revealed by God, not productions of men's heads. But if he means, their judgements went not along with their contestations, but while they testified to have received them from their Ancestors, they spoke contrary to their judgement; then they all conspired to tell a lie 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 denied) if all the Protestants could be fallible in witnessing whether twenty years ago there were Protestant Bishops or no. First he will neither say, I, nor no to the point; only he says, (Answ. p. 37.) he believes 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 error. 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 err, and conspire to tell an open lie in a thing visible as the Sun at noonday? and Dr. H. first shuffles at that, and then counterfeits that I pretend them Infallible in all matters of Fact whatsoever; as in guessing what passed in the late Kings privy Council 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 be'st Dr. H's Friend, to ask him whether it be the Catholics tenet, that the Church is infallible in matters of Faith only, or in all things indefinitely; as in knowing the height & number of the Stars, what weather it shall be every day next year, etc. 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 custom 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 laid open, make up a mess of most excellent nonsense, called, 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 Disarmed p. 21.) the ground of Unity 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 Catholic Gentleman's letter, which tended to those purposes. The first I showed 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 itself fallible, can with any face pretend to impose an obligation of belief; nor yet excuse itself for breaking from acknowledged 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 reasoned by a Doctor of Divinity, to make the sum and ground of all his Answer, the denying the said Rule of Faith, (our Church's Infallibility) which was in effect to confess the Fact, and to prove he is no Schismatic, because he is an Heretic and Schismatic both.  
For answer to these three points he refers 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 reflections upon the main points; not attending him in each Paragraph, in many of which the insipid Crambe of his own self sayings is boiled over and over. But first he sends three or four whifflers upon the stage to trifle it, ere the tragedy of Faith and its certainty begins.  
His first trifle is, that the Catholic Gentleman calls that Mr. Knot's concession, which is his Conclusion from that Concession. A sore quarrel! as if he who granted the premises, and made the inference himself, must not also grant the Conclusion; if so, than his Conclusion is his Concession as well as the premises.  
His second trifle is, that Reply p. 14. he pretends, all that was by him taken notice of, was the consequence between the Premises and that Conclusion, which naturally inferred a third thing, that it was unlawful to forsake the Communion of any fallible Church; and the Catholic 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 avoid 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 lie.  
His third trifle is, that he tells us (Repl. p. 14.) he may certainly affirm 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 believe 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 says nothing.  
His fourth trifle is, when we speak of obligation of belief, to slip the point, and talk 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 says the Governors thus oblige inferiors 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 errors. I know that a probability of the thing in itself can oblige a man to act; as a sudden Alarm 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 played 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 its own plain terms, is by Mr H's art made straddle four several ways, so to dispose it to a downfall; and drawn and quartered with unheard of tortures, because it will not confess a falsehood, of which it was not conscious. The four distracted limbs of it, which are to be anatomised particularly, are here put down by Mr. H. (p. 15.) 1. What is meant by [can lie.] 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no. 3 By Power to bind. 4. By Belief. An ordinary Reader that meant honestly would think these words very easy: but that is their fault to be too easy; they must be blundered 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, than it follows that she doth lie for any thing she knows.  
The same cruelty is shown in dismembering 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 shameful 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 exterior 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 error, 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 ado (for any thing he hath said) it is still indifferently and equally probable that it does err, 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 Church's power to bind to belief. Take notice, Reader, how shufflingly the Doctor behaves himself in saying, it is naturally possible that Church may err, 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 err; if not, what meant 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 Church's knowledge whether it err or no, he says, (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, etc. 'tis the most perfect piece of perniciousness that ever was crowded into so narrow a room, destroying at once all Faith, and Ground of Faith, and making the Church no certainer of her Faith than jews, Turks, and Heathens of theirs▪ For if the Church's knowledge whether she erreor no mean that she hath only a full persuasion, cui non subest dubium; Turks, Heathens and jews 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 error 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 Church's knowledge whether she err or no, be only 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? Falsehood in things concerning Eternity is a dangerous rock, and aught to breed caution, (which goes ever accompanied 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, than indeed she may thank her circumstances, or her doltishness, not her Grounds, for that her groundless assurance. For otherwise, should she call her thoughts 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 herself 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 Church's 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 itself 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 err, though she have used all means imaginable to secure herself from error.  
After his false explication of Power to bind already spoken of, which he turns to an obligation to act and obey exteriorly; he adds, as if the obligation to Belief were collateral only to our purpose, that there may farther be meant by those words,) he ought to have said, there must be only 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 confessed and known fallibility in the proposer is sufficient in itself to make such a ground, he shall never show, unless he can show reason to be nonsense, and nonsense 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 its essence must be its 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 go 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, than (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 be'st 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 only to believe so far as not to disbelieve, then in reality she can oblige them to believe nothing at all, but only 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 only 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 believe 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 defined 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 err, than 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? Unless perhaps the Doctor pretend to show, that the probable reasons for her fallibility and Infallibility be so justly and equally poised in the Sceptic balance, that none can say whether the pound of rushes in the one end, or the pound of straws in the other be the weightier ware, or better worth three-halfpences.  
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 inferiors 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 only to behave themselves quietly.) 2. But for any absolute Infallible belief or consent, That, no Church which is not itself 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 err in: and senseless, if (as Dr. H. seems to suppose it may be (the inferiors assent is no way required; for, how can a speculative point be decided authoritatively, if the inferior be no way bound to assent, but to acquiesce only?  
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 only to shuffle words together on any fashion, is his elaborate nonsense.  
Note Reader, that in his first proposition he puts not Belief at all, (which yet is the only matter in question) but in the latter only; 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 hover conditional belief, but to an absolute and infallible one: nor do we fear to affirm, that the Faithful in the Catholic 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 full; but one example once put, will make the Reader easily find its 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 err, and (p. 16. l. 8) properly speaking knows not whether it err 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 only so far as not to disbelieve; that is, that herself knowing nothing properly or positively, can by consequence oblige none to believe any thing properly and positively, but to obey only. Is not this a fine upshot of such an elaborate answer? And when he hath done this, than he adds another proposition, Parag 22. which confesses all that he stumbled at before, and which only 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 than 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 cloth, or a whole thread. 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, etc. This done, he would join 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 Molehill and a Mountain, 'tis certain, that part of a Mountain may not be greater than a whole Molehill, and so likewise part of the web of cloth to wit, a whole thread, may not be greater in longitude than the whole web. Then coming to the question, add a parallel to his second proposition, and conclude in these words; But as for an Apple and its part, speaking of the quantity belonging to a body, that is profundity or bulk, 'tis 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 Belief 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 belief, and in what it consists. For I doubt not but Mr. H. wonders, and many judicious Protestant Readers may perhaps remain solicitous to imagine, how and in what manner there can be any power to force & command the Soul to an interior belief or assent. But I hope this short hint will make them see that this power is founded upon free & rational Grounds, not a tyrannical bare command of any authority whatsoever. It is confessed then, that as a body cannot be moved locally, but after a corporeal & quantitative manner, as is its nature; so neither can a soul, which is of its nature rational, be moved to assent, but by reasons 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 joint connexion with a third in the premises, and this also an immediate one (for a connexion which is not immediate is in reality none at all, at least to the Understanding, 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 original, 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 says, that Authority hath power to oblige others in virtue of the said Evidence to assent to what she shall affirm, that is, to oblige them to belief: for this is no harder a treaty, than to bind them to that to which their own nature had bound them beforehand, 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 belief, 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 its 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 Catholic Church, all conspiring to witness that those points of doctrine (things visible and most concerning) were received from their Ancestors, as from their, and so ascending upwards, as from Christ. The virtue by which this Authority or incomparable multitude of witnesses claims to be a motive, and to have power to convince the Understanding and so oblige to assent to their word, that is, to believe, 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 Child's eternal bliss; or, that they could either err, or mistake in things so visible, or even contrive a conspiracy to embrace any one error, considering the several Countries in which they lived dispersed, 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 error, 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 only what she received as thus attested: The Evidence of her Infallibility obliges a rational nature to assent upon such an Authority, that is, to believe; and consequently her Power to oblige Belief is as firm as this Truth, that Evidence obliges the Understanding 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 belief is evidently natural, just, charitable, rational and necessary; since she obliges them upon no other Ground than that which in its 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 only without Evidence, but against it.  
Thirdly, that therefore the Governors of the Church who proceed according to this power, may justly punish and excommunicate those who recede from her Belief founded in her Authority thus evidenced; since this recession must spring from vice, or a disordered 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 only governs men according to their nature or Reason.  
Fifthly, that they who adhere to any other fallible Congregation upon only 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, aught upon necessity to be Excommunicated, cast out of the Church, and separated from the Congregation of the Faithful. 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 dogmatise upon acknowledged probabilities only; 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 only the Independents, Presbyterians, etc. may justly refuse to hear the Protestant Church, which acknowledges herself 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 herself 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 error, and some one or more, may happen to see evidently that it is in such an error; 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 obligation to oppose that Church, and let men see their soul-endangering error, 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 error) 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 lawful yet to revolt against temporal Magistrates upon the score of their fallibility, in case they oblige their Subjects only to act or obey according to the civil State, because that is a Government grounded only upon natural reason, instituted for natural ends, and plainly evident it must be obeyed; unavoidable 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 belief, is most tightly pernicious, destroying at once all belief, and leaving no obligation in the world, nay making it a sin to believe 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 only 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 Church'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 believe 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 Universal Attestation, the prudent Reader will plainly see, how consequently the Catholic Church proceeds to the grounds of Nature and Reason, & how inconsequently to both the Protestant Churches must necessarily go, when they would oblige either to Government, or Faith: Since Certainty and Evidence once renounced, there remains nothing to move the Understanding to assent rationally; nor any thing to move it at all but passion, disordered affections, fear, or Interest.  
Many paradoxes seem very plausible and pretty, while they are dressed 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 belief 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 imagine 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, lopped off and seared the Hydra-head from ever growing more, in his Answer to Schism Disarmed) would give them a gallant Sermon Whereupon, a great confluence of people coming together to receive edification, after a dirge sung in Hopkins rhyme very pitifully in memory of the deceased Book of Common-prayer, up steps Dr. H. repeats his Text, and falls to his Harangue: In which let us imagine 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 imagine, 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 children's whole estates, and lay down a thousand lives, rather than forgo 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 literal truth of our tenet, neither I, nor the Church of England, whose judgement I follow, are infallibly certain of this doctrine which I bid you thus believe 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 etc. etc. 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 yourselves, beloved, for though it may be equally and indifferently probable it errs, yet it is not strongly probable that it will (p. 16. l. 1.) Wherefore, dearly beloved Brethren, have a full persuasion I beseech 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 Governors of our Church may indeed lead you into damnable errors, being not infallible in Faith, yet you must obey them (p. 16. l. 16.) by force of the Apostl's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; (here the goodwomen are all-to-bewondered, and bless themselves monstrously at the learned sound of the two Greek words) at least (p. 17. l. 3.) believe 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 suspense, dear brethren, hang in a pious suspense, and believe 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 Zion: although you should perhaps see that this Church did Idolatrously err 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 errors, and that she carried Souls quietly and peaceably to Hell, for want of some to resist and oppose her, yet let them go 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 Auditors pluck him out of the Pulpit, if they believed him not; or, if they believed him, to return home Sceptics or Atheists? Yet how perfectly, chiefly in express terms, partly in necessary Consequences, it is his, his own words have already manifested: 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 itself, and by consequence, Christ's Godhead must be uncertain also, and so there can be no power or motive to oblige men to believe it more than the rest.   

Sect. 13.  
The four main Advantages of the Catholic 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 Union 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 undergo. 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 Union, I must confess I know not what will be likely to do 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 hear of motives or reasons for Union, but says, 'tis in vain to speak of them: that is, he professes to renounce his Reason, rather than forgoethe obstinacy of his Schismatical humour: yet he says 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, acknowledged 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 Disarmed, 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 only the punishment for their former voluntary faults, to wit, the Church'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 outlawed and cut off from the Communion of the good Subjects for these faults, should lay all the blame on the Governors and judges, saying, no sedition nor division was made in the Commonwealth, till they outlawed 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 Pastor; the agreeing in one Rule of Faith, to which all our private opinions and debates give place as to an infallible Law, to decide all quarrels about Faith; the multitudes of visible exterior 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, believed 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 Catholic Church take one another for Fellows and Brothers, that is, they are unto them so many motives of Union: 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 'tis in vain to speak of those to him; and why? because his passion and disordered affections or Interest have so throughly persuaded him, both without and against Evidence, and two or three odd testimonies, with an Id est in the end of them, without ever considering the impossibility that Universal Attestation should err, have bred a kind of assurance in him, cui non subest dubium (which is all he requires for his own or his Church's certainty of Faith, Rep. p. 16.) that he professes himself incapable to hear motives and reasons, and that 'tis 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 show for his Crown, and much less any person or persons for any other thing. Now what more manifest, than that we enjoy this acknowledgement of our Adversaries, to have that this Antiquity and Possession for many ages; and that this acknowledgement 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 expressed by the Catholic Gentleman to be his meaning, Dr. H. first (p. 20.) shuffles off to Fraternal Communion: next, of a Divine turned Lawyer, he citys as an affirmation of the Doctors, presumi malam fidem ex antiquiori Adversarij possessione; which applied means thus much, that, they being more anciently in possession, 'tis to be presumed that we usurped: So that, till he evidence that they were more anciently in possession, his law avails him nothing. In the mean time, let him consider our two advantage; to wit, that we had a Possession acknowledged 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 confessed before had but probability of her not erring: now then, that which is a probability only, is in its 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 only disacknowledged by us, but also in its own nature subject to dispute: ours before theirs, acknowledged, 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 its 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 Usurpation. For certainly, that Authority which could not be usurped but most visibly, and yet the usurpation is not most visible, was not usurped at all, but was ever. Wherefore our possession and Authority is justly presumable to have been continued ever since Christ's time; since the beginning of our Faith could never be clearly manifested, as many Protestant Authors beyond exception confess, and only 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 confessed and known original, which differences us from them by a most manifest advantage.  
The persuasion of Infallibility (our fourth advantage (p. 21.) there mentioned) must necessarily be mistaken and wrong apprehended as well as its 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 only means to oblige the Subjects of any Church to Unity of Belief; nay, that there can be no rationality to any belief at all, where this persuasion of the Church's Infallibility is not found: which being found in no Congregation but that of the Catholic 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 herself. 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 Unity of the Faithful, flies off and says, this can have no influence upon them; though it be the only 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 convincing 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 stuff 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 believing that King Henry the eighth was King of this Nation: the reasons whereof notwithstanding he accounts fallible, because the testimonies of mere 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 Uncertainty,) 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 believe, that serving or misunderstanding an odd line or two, gleaned for the nonce out of Scripture or and old Author, can by any multiplication arrive to the clearness of the former ample, undeniable, uncontrollable Verdict of witnesses, that King H. the eighth vas King of this Nation: much less 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 only 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 go about to answer the major by putting some Cause as possible to be in itself proportionable, and so able to produce this strange Effect, besides the Existence of K. H. the eighth; the very position would disgrace itself and the Author, when the proportions of its efficacity came to be scanned and applied to the Universal 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, Wars, Acts of Parliaments, Ambassadors in all parts, Descent, Apostatising, together with the infinite multitude of Conveyances, Bonds, judgements, 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 believe 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 renounced no less than rigorous Evidence and Demonstration, (the only 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 showed not-concluding; therefore they concluded demonstrably. The minor is proved 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 go about to confute it, or evidence the contrary; itself 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 Windmill uncertainty; till you can show you can produce the million'th part of that Evidence and certainty: but rather be ashamed 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 Authors cast into what mould you please by Id est's, self-explications, and voluntary deductions, according to the easily-bending nature of words. That is, blush to have renounced 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 belief and ground of Belief; he tells us, (pag. 23.) It is evident, that belief is no more than consent to the truth of any thing, and the grounds of belief, 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 belief, which is commanded by God himself, and so cannot be sinful, 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 believed: which how it can stand with her fallibility in the same point, is past Dr. H's skill to make good, since if it be once known that she can err in it, it can never be shown thats he does not, there being no certainer Authority than herself to testify certainly when she hits, and when she fails: 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 herself? If he say, she must compare herself with other Church's, he not only grants each may err, but even, (Repl. p. 15. l. 32.) after recourse had to the said means, he only puts here, pag. 16. l. 1. that it is not strongly probable that such a Church will err: so that if she can err, she does err, for any thing any body knows.  
What follows is only a trifling defence of himself for his bad disputing. He was accused by us of a Schism twisted with Heresy: he defended himself, by alleging 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 Logic is, that he put (Repl. p. 24.) only a fiction of case: but 'tis plain he relies upon that fiction as on a real Ground, saying there expressly (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 allowed to make some suppositions, etc. Again, he says he makes but one, but yet he there puts down four: so that the difficulty is only 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 falsely upon the Cath. Gentl. (Repl. p. 26.) that he requires him at the begenning of the dispute to grant the (Church of Rome infallible. Whereas we only mind him, that since he is accused of a Schism linked 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 Church'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 Belief was, as I conceived, very important, and well worth clearing; neither do I remember to have read it in any other place fetched from its first Grounds, that so I might refer the Reader thither. I have also vindicated the Cath Gentl. something more particularly than I proposed to myself at first, or than was my obligation; which was only 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 its 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 pitifully maimed of the third, which was against subjection to some one Superior. His skill employed in plastering it comes to this, that all Schism is either in inferiors against Superiors, or in equals against equals (Rep. p. 28.) He should have said against some one Superior, in the singular; for his Discourse in his book of Schism never looked further; which occasioned 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 Logic: 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 sinful, and so exceeds it. Sacrilege and Patricide, according to the common notions, are found indeed in every simple theft and murder: but according to their specifical differences, by which they are distinguished from them, they exceed them, and so are not comprised 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 talked only of the petty Schisms against some one particular Superior, 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 comprised in one of those lesser heads, he privaricates from the question which is about the sin, and talks of the man; who is comprised 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 Logic 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 Governor, 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 Superiors 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 Superior, 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 Superior, or from his Equals, but he must in so doing separate from the whole Catholic Church? and then the wise argument had evidently bewrayed its weakness. In a word, either he means by Superiors, some of them only, and then he runs over boots into a Contradiction, to get out of a less fault, in which he stood wetshod; for some of them, cannot be a●●, or the whole Church: or if, by Superiors, he means all; then let him show me, that, in his Book of Schism, he hath treated of that which is against all the Superiors 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 extol 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 says nothing positively, but keeps himself within the powerful 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, etc. and this both in Provincial, National, and General Councils. The reason he assigns 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 Governor (of which only 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 Governor, after having put that which is against the whole Church, or the collection of many; but, quite contrary, which putting down only the Schisms against particular Governors, 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 noonday, that one may descent 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 Governor, is the disobedience to all.  
Again, though a Bishop have a kind of paternal Authority over a Priest, a Metropolitan over a Bishop, etc. and so the disobedience of these Inferiors 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 Patriarches 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 Schismatic against Paternal power; and so, according to Dr. H's division, would be no Schismatic 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 Patriarches, 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 only; 'tis most evident to the most ordinary Understanding, that he omitted Schism against Authority of Councils.  
After all this ado 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 only objected. No, I had forgot; he only goes about to give reasons, why he did not treat it more specially: by which pretty expression the good Reader is to be made believe, that he had treated of it specially, and only 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 laboured to produce proofs, that he did treat of Schism against Councils, he brings his excuses why he did not do 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 Universal 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 judicatures. 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 Schismatic in an higher sort of Schism, so it happen upon occasion; but takes care first and more specially that he be not a Schismatic 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 Universal secular Governor, and by consequence, according to Mr. H's, grounds, the Head of God's Church, or Supreme in Ecclesiastical affairs, will do 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 myself 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 its parts. First, with a Schism from the whole Church, in renouncing the Rule and Root of all our Faith, Universal Oral Tradition of immediate Forefathers, 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 only disobeying, but disacknowleding the Authority of the Pope, recommended to us by both the former. And it seems strange that Mr. H. should go 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 only of petty ones against the Paternal power of a Bishop, Patriarch, etc. 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 Catholic 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 Schismatic against them gathered together, than in dissenting from the joynt-expression of their votes: if then their votes be sufficiently expressed and testified, 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. says, (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 Understandings 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, Faithful: and consequently, there may be several breaches of those two Unities; 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 says here) under that latter: yet this method Dr. H. will vindicate, as indeed he may do any thing after his manner. See his confusion for method sake, Schism Disarmed, p. 230.  
To these former objections now rehearsed, he at least pretends an Answer, such as it is; but to other exceptions sufficiently laid home to him, Schism Disarmed, 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 charged 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 heinous a Schism it is, to renounce it without legitimate proof.  
Secondly, he was asked, why, to state things indifferently, he treated not of Schism against the Head of the Church, as abstracted from an Ecclesiastical Governor, (the Pope) and a Secular Magistrate, (the King, Emperor, etc.) for sure the disobeying or renouncing this Head, must needs be a greater Schism than that which is against those reckoned up by him, who are all under this Head.  
Lastly, he was asked, why he treated not at least of Schism against the Secular-Ecclesiastical Head, King, Emperor, etc. and let us know what kind of Schismatics we are, for renouncing his Authority in Ecclesiastical matters? His jurisdiction, according to Mr. H. is supreme in such affairs: since then, the disobeying or rejecting any Authority takes its 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 Schismatics, for denying the King's Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But alas! this airy Supremacy of Kings in sacred matters is such an addle piece of Ecclesiastical Authority, that though they pretend it, to avoid the Pope's jurisdiction, yet (as it appears) they decline to own it themselves as much as they can, upon occasions; lest, coming to a controversial discussion, it bewray its weakness by the absurdity of some necessary consequence or other issuing from it. justly therefore did Schism Disarmed, 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 only principal in themselves, but also solely importing the present controversy: and only 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. showed 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 jurisdiction; as also by Dr. H's words in his Reply p. 33. l. 2. and again, p. 34. l 4. 5.  
To avoid the Doctor's blundring art, in which he is very exquisite always, but in handling this question hath excelled 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 Archbishop or Metropolitan, to the Precedent of every Province; that of a Patriarch, to the Lieutenant or Vicarius; and in general, that the Ecclesiastical Order followed the Political. This I only 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 determined, were held long after this Order in the Ecclesiastical jurisdictions 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 practised 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 jurisdiction larger; as the second note shows. Now, that he indeed impugned a Metropolitical power only in stead of a Patriarchal, is manifested; both because he impugns this latter in the 17. parag. ordained to treat of Metropolitical power only, (his treating of Primates and Patriarches 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 acknowledged 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 distinguished 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 only mention the City of Rome.  
The first is this, as cited by himself; (Rep p. 33.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Let the house be delivered to those to whom the Bishop through Italy, and the City of Rome should decree it. The second, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The holy Synod assembled from Rome, and Spain, France and Italy The third, four hundred Bishops, both from great Rome, and from all Italy and Calabria. Now suppose, insisting on the Grounds of mine own cause, I should only reply that they mentioned 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 particularised 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. meant honestly, that is, to speak of the Metropolitical jurisdiction only (as he pretended, and as the place properly required,) than what had he concluded? since the proving the Metropolical jurisdiction less than all Italy, proves not that the Patriarchal reached 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 jurisdiction from these words; he must conclude that neither the Metropolitical nor Patriarchal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome reached beyond its 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 occasioned 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, etc. 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 jurisdiction, 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 bend 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 Patriarches, (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 Governor 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 imagined 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 only 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 only, 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 only 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 authorised, Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerere, this being the main business which occasioned this debate, and gave birth to this imagined limitation of the Pope's Patriarchate, we shall take a little pains to fetch it from its 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 imagine 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 pitifully 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 confirmed, because in both Languages it is evident that the Latin 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 custom to handle and judge matters belonging to the Patriarchy of Alexandria: Next, that the Council governed itself in this important matter by the custom 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 jurisdiction of the Patriarches: but this is a perfect Chimerical imagination, originized from the invention of those whose hatred against the Church of Rome, occasioned 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 specified: nothing being ordered there concerning either Antio●h or the West, but that their privileges (that is, what by custom 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, 'tis granted that Schismatics 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 testified and other Schismatics 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 imagined 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 deems 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 Authors 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 cauterised for heresy, to wit, Origenism and Pelagianism, and that by Pope Anastasius, as appears both by the letter of the said Pope to john Bishop of Jerusalem, 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 Apostolic See had condemned? Add 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 Popedom of Innocentius, Successor of Anastasius: and so had as much reason to write in prejudice of that See, as an incorrigible and obstinate Heretic 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 venom, 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 Author to be first alleged, 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 talon. Some instances of it may be; that he (in hist. Eccles. Euseb. l. 1. c. 1.) makes of james Bishop of Jerusalem, james Bishop of the Apostles; of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies Happy, a Saint by name Macarius; of Eusebius of Pamphilus, Heretic and Arian, Pamphilus Catholic and Martyr; of Xystus, Pythagorean 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 unskilful in either language, that he was taken for a Greek by the Latins, 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 practices 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, says 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 add 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 wooden statue, a pitiful 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 its Patrons to rely upon such a barbarous, heretical, malicious, and silly fellow's Authority; who wanted both ordinary learning, and common honesty, the only things which can give him any Authority at all; and this in the judgement of persons beyond all exception either of ignorance or prejudice.  
This miserable and ruinous testimony, upon which yet our Adversaries build so much, being resolved 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 established 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 selfsame 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 Schismatics: 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 Privileges; to wit, that some Nations be under the Bishop of Alexandria, others under the Bishop of Antioch, etc. and to the Bishop of Rome the same is given, to wit, that he govern the Occidental Nations.  
The second shall be of Zonaras, a Greek Schismatic 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 imagined limitation of the Pope's Patriarchy, before spoken of (hath these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Council ordains that the Bishop of Alexandria have the superintendency of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as the ancient custom 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 Authors beyond all pretence of partiality towards us; whose interest and passion ought rather have obliged them to detract than superadd to the Pope's jurisdiction. Not were they less secure from opinion of ignorance; the quality of Archbishop in one of them, and of professed Writers for the Greeks in both, rendering them not liable either to exception of supineness, or want of knowledge. judge then again, how bad that cause must be, which can oblige men, rational enough in other businesses, to refuse assent to a Verdict thus qualified, and adhere to a bare word, capable of a different (and so unprejudicial) signification, as coming from an Author so intolerably barbarous as this Ruffinus hath been shown: or, if meant in that stricter signification, can yet claim no credit; as being only 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 Appeals, 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 little 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 only, (of Schism p. 59) telling us, that there was none over the Patriarches but the Emperor only; which he proved, because they use to gather Councils. His Disarmer broke the reeds of the testimonies he produced, by showing them unable to conclude, unless they prove that the Emperor 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 Universal 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, than 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, etc. Whereas indeed this Convoking of Councils is no ordinary Act of any standing jurisdiction 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 Church'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 Antipope which makes the title dubious, etc. 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 public, 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 only may, but ought apply both, as much as in him lies, to prevent the harm of the public. 'Tis 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 allege some Testimonies, (Reply p. 39) that there was not anciently, (besides the Prince or Emperor) 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 Governor 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 learned Logic, we were told that a Summum genus was perfectly and actually included in every Individual contained 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 denied him.  
Those concerning Appeals 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 appeal to any foreign power, but only 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 Celestine, in these words, We entreat you that, for the future, you will not easily admit those who are Excommunicated by us, etc. To these he adds a fourth, from the 34. Apostolic 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, etc. but leave it indifferent whether the Bishops, Arch-Bishops, nay Primates themselves may appeal to the Pope: which we make account is a far greater honour to the Pope, than the deciding the inferior 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 Thiefs, Robbers, and such inferiors Delinquents, after their condemnation by the judges and other inferior Officers, to appeal to him. Who sees not that there could never be any Government, or justice done, if every Priest, though found never so guilty at home by his own immediate Governors, 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 hearsay ever uncertain? Again, who sees not that such an easy admittance of every ordinary Delinquents Appeal is both most cumbersome, nay impossible, to be performed by the Supreme, and very derogatory to the esteem and Authority of Inferior Officers, without the Conservation of which all Government and Common-good goes to wrack? justly 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 domestic judges, 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 Patriarches 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 aims at no less in this worthy Discourse of his upon the said Citations.  
And this may suffice 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 inferior Delinquents to appeal to him, it can only infer necessarily the unfitness that the Pope should execute that Authority, not the want of Authority itself.  
The second Testimony, that they which are excommunicated by some, shall not be received by others, is the only place in this Section most likely to infer the Doctor's Conclusion, that the Pope's is not Supreme: which indeed it does most amply, if taken in its whole latitude and extent; but withal 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, than it is unlawful for a Priest to appeal from his Bishop to an Archbishop, Primate, or Provincial Council (granted in the said testimony;) which takes away all Authority in a Superior over the Acts and Decrees of an Inferior, and by consequence all Government. Now then, since the said testimony (which indeed was meant of the Appeals of Priests, and so is already answerded) cannot serve him, unless taken in its 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 Superior Governors universally: Mr. H's grounds must make it conclude against us, by making it signify a denial of Appeals to Coequals in Authority only. Wherefore, all its force is built on this supposition, that the Pope is not Superior, but coequal only to a Patriarch: so that his Argument is epitomised 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 gainsaying the Pope's power, that the very expressions of which it is framed are rather so many acknowlegdments of it: being only a request, not that he would not receive their Appeals or admit them at all, much less that he could not, but only 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 do it easily, intimates or supposes he had a power to do it absolutely? This is confirmed 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 Governor to conserve the Laws of the Church inviolate; unless Evidence, that in these Circumstances it crossed 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 alleged 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 still like Dr. H. as he maintains a bad cause; that is, incomparably weak and short of concluding any thing. 'Tis 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 Archbishop Head of his Archbishopric; 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 Superior to his? yet this, applied 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 only Head of all Bishops. Observe that canting phrase, one only Head, &c His intent here manifestly was to show no degree of Authority Superior to Patriarches: to prove this he alleges this testimony now agitated; and then, because he saw it would not carry home to the mark be aimed it at, he infers warily, that the Pope is not the one only 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 Superior over Primates; and by consequence Supreme over the whole Church: yet so Supreme, as he leaves to Subordinate Governors their Headship inviolate over their proper Inferiors.  
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 denied 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, etc. No Patriarch must use the title of Universal; for if one Patriarch be called Universal, the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest. The fourth is, their threadbare and often answered testimony of Saint Gregory, refusing the title of Universal Bishop.  
But, first, these testimonies come short of what they are intended for, in this, that none speaks of the right of jurisdiction, but only 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 only, which sounded proudly, and seemed 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 still 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 signified by some word, at some time, which cannot be signified 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 signified 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, seemed 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 'twas refused by that prudent and humble Pope, because the proud Patriarch of Constantinople usurped it in an illegitimate and intolerable sense.  
Fourthly, the sense of that title in the testimonies objected being evidently this, that none could be Patriarches 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, Patriarches 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 Catholics, hinders not others to remain still Patriarches, is most plain: For, we grant him only such an higher degree of power over Patriarches, as an Archbishop hath over a Bishop; from which superiory over them it follows that he is Supreme in God's Church. As then, the placing an Archbishop over Bishops doth not un-bishop them; so neither doth the exalting the Pope's Authority above Patriarchal destroy the notion of a Patriarch: but each of them retains their complete limits of Power in the Church, notwithstanding their subordination to their Superior: 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 denies 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 denied the word of Universal Bishop, which sounded then proudly, yet he both practised and challenged the thing itself, that is, the Papal jurisdiction, 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 says, Si qua culpa, etc. 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 acknowledged by the Emperor 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 itself, or in the ancient Copies, but are Gratian's addition only: wherefore they are to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took th●m; whose Epistle he citys 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 Schismatic, 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 Patriarches did style themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vile and base. See Balls. 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 only treated there, nor the thing or jurisdiction; about which our controversy being, Dr. H. aught to have brought testimonies impugning it, not a bare name only.  
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 its Patrons to cast their strongest hopes upon such testimonies, which (to omit other frailties) declare themselves and are confessed by our bitterest Adversaries not to mean the thing or jurisdiction, (the only matter in debate,) but the Phrase of titular appellation only: 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 airy title. So that Dr. H. pays his Reader with the same coin, as that hungry fellow did; who, having satisfied himself with the smell of the Cook's meat, paid his exacting host with the sound of the money in stead of the substance.  
But now, it being firmly settled by the former frothy Argument, that the Pope had anciently no Universal Authority; he proceeds to show when this strange Usurpation impower'd itself 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 ado, obtained an Edict of Phocas the Emperor to that purpose. Where, if he means 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 jurisdiction over the whole Church was then given by Phocas: then, besides that this jurisdiction we dispute of is over Kings and Emperors, as well as others, in Ecclesiastical matters, and so not likely to be given by Phocas the Emperor; we must be put to imagine (which will cost us no less than perfect madness, ●re we shall be able to do it,) upon the blind and bare affirmation of an obscure Sentence, that an Universal Government in Ecclesiastical matters over the whole Christian world could be introduced (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 concerned in the Ecclesiastical, and millions of other particular changes included in, and dependent on these general ones; no effect of it at all being notorious, but only a testimony, (or perhaps two) in a rumour-grounded History-book. If the Doctor would persuade us, that the Supreme jurisdiction of Rome was then introduced, 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 Universal jurisdiction in highest matters could creep into the world with pantofles of mat on, without discovering itself in multitudes of circumstances proportionable to its visibleness and weightiness: that is, let him not hope to gull 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 Souls or men's minds, because of their divers dispositions apt to be wrought upon diversely; that is, to be stirred up to divers Thoughts, to divers Passions the result of those thoughts, and divers 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 applied to the matter: for it is equally impossible, that an universal Government should be borough in, and all not know of it, as that is should at once be and notbe; since it cannot be introduced 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 denied, or can, without denying the first principles. Now, add to this, that the Protestant Authors themselves are in twenty minds about the times that this change came in, and that their best Authors beyond exception (of which I remember Doctor Whittaker is one) confess in express terms, that the time of the Roman Church'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:) add this I say, and it follows, that no such visible effects of its introducing can be shown at all; and consequently, that it was never introduced. Which as it immovably strengthens our title of possession, rendering it such as is not only 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 stuff of every trifling, controvertible, or (at best) waxen-natured Testimony. Yet the Doctor's own words are but these; that Boniface the third, with much ado, obtained of Phocas the Emperor an Edict for the Primacy and Universal jurisdiction of the Church of Rome: See Paulus Diac. de gestis Rom. l. 18 which still is an argument that till than it had no foundation. Where first is to be noted that, of his own good will, the Doctor puts in those words, with much ado; whereas the Author only says, rogante Papâ, the Pope entreating it. Secondly, that whereas the Author says, Caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum, in his book de gestis Longobardorum, l. 4. c. 37. (which Book without controversy is his and plainly says, that the Emperor 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, 'tis evident that the Doctor's great bragging that the Story is known to all, is resolved into the corruption of an unauthentick text. Which is most evident by the words following in both places of the said Author, Quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat: which bears no sense, if the Decree gave the jurisdiction; but an excellent one, if the decree only defined it against the wrongful challenge of the Constantinopolitan Church. Wherefore you see that the Doctor's Inference, which yet is an argument that till than it had no foundation, is so wretched, that the contrary aught to be deduced, than 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 toys answered. No obligation for Catholics 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, & only saying that he had answered the following ones. Among these which are answered only, 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 only, 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 cleared 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 aught 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 Disarmed, p. 41. or his own book p. 68 may easily see: where, after he had spoken of and acknowledged 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 Successors 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 denied the Pope's Supremacy, next, that what God bid us do is to be done, and that the Authority instituted by Christ is to be obe'yd. Dr H. is therefore candid when he acknowledges here that these passages are ridiculous; very unconsonant to himself, when he denies there is the least cause or ground for it in his Tract, whereas his own express words, now cited, manifest●●● and lastly, extraordinarily reserved, 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 common custom to talk quodlibetically; he thought it the wiser way to put up what's passed 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 Catholics 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 Emperor or any long and-quietly-possest Governor, to evidence to a known Rebel and actual Renouncer of his Authority, that his title to the Kingdom 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 Catholics, 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 inquire 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 Catholic on the part of the Opponent; that is, to make us bring proofs, and seem to renounce the claim of our so-qualifyed a possession by condescending to dispute it. Whereas we are in all reason to stick to it till it be sufficiently disproven, which cannot be done otherwise than by rigorous Evidence, as hath been shown; not to dispute it as a thing dubious: since 'tis 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 only evidence we produce, when we please to oppose, is the evidence of the Infallibility of Universal Tradition or Attestation of Forefathers, 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 Universal Attestation, nor the testimonies of Scripture as explicable by the received doctrine of Ancestors (which latter must be done by showing that the doctrine of the Church, thus attested and received, gives them not this explication;) 'tis evident that he hath not so much as mentioned, 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, etc. to show, ad hominem, our advantage over the Protestants even in their own (and to them the only) 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 custom 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 only managed 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 meant only that Catholics 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 Catholics rely on that donation as the Foundation or cornerstone of the whole building. 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 Successor, Head pastor; not our argument to infer that he is so. 'Tis part of our Tenet, and the thing which we hold upon possession, to be disproven by them or (if we see it fitting) to be proved by us: not our argument or proof against them, to maintain it or conclude it so, As a title than 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 imagine 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 its self as obscure, as the thing he imagines 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 Catholic Writers, from whom Dr. H. has got all the learning, must be imagined unacquainted with that trivial toy belonging to the A, B C, of Logic.  
Next he goes about to prove our tenor of possession null: which he does most tightly, by telling us (Reply, p. 45.) that now they are in possession, and consequently, by the force of the Catholics argument, all arguments deducible from thence are lost to him, the prescription being now on the Protestant's side as before on the Catholics. Where, first he manifestly calumniates the Catholic 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 Catholics, who maintain their possession to have been ever from the beginning; and never to have belonged 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 succeeding possession. Well done Doctor, still; 'tis the luck of your Arguments against us, that they are most proper and exquisite pleas for all malefactors. 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 Thiefs 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, turned Lawyer) to plead for them. The honest Inhabitant pleads possession. Dr. H. replies, 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 Client's behalf, and exacts of the honest man to show his original right; which he (his Ancestors having enjoyed it time out of mind) not being able to manifest, the poor fellow loses his house, and the picaros carry the cause by the virtue of Dr. H's argument against the possession of catholics.  
The same reason would do 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 enjoyed; 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 careful 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 concerned; which their negligence of eternal happiness, more obscurely & faroff proposed, makes them willing to think very fair in their debates about Eternity with us.  
To make this clearer, and withal to show how parallel Dr. H's Possession is to the former unjust ones, and how unapt to parallel, much less to outvie and disannul ours, as he would have it, we will put them in the balance 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 itself 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 its weight can be shown, that is, such immediate changes in the world as may justly make it supposed an Usurpation; theirs, manifest in such visible and violent immediate effects, and such consequences of millions of changes, as render it a palpable Usurpation. Hence ours is obscure in its 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 alleged 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 usurped, than that William the Conqueror should have impower'd himself over England, without other manifest immediate effects or signs of his newly-introduced supreme Government there, than that there are two or three dark sentences in the Apocalypse, which abstracting from antecedents and consequents, may be applied to it. The whole world agrees of the time and circumstances 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 presumed for such, since every one knows when it began. Wherefore our Possession is so qualified, that, of itself, it can ground a claim, that it came from the Fountain head of all Ecclesiastical power, Christ jesus; 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 itself 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 lived, but needs to be pieced with a former imaginary possession antecedent to our pretended 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-named possession, in any other sense than as the having any thing, however it is come by, is called 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 enjoyed at all; Catholic 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 myself 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 Universal 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 its 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 days; nor is it capable at all of pretending Evidence for its coming from Christ, seeing it hath Evidence against its coming from Christ. Now then▪ Prescription hear being of no force, their present pretended possession is no better than it was after their first three days; and our Possession so well qualified, 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 cutpurse, from the present possession (that is, having) of the things which they lately purloined 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 only 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 qualified 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 its 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 succeeding possession: so making their counterfeit possession (which indeed signify 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 laid 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 belonged 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 pitiful stuff, as would undervalue 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 arguing against the Romanists.  
First, although he knows, and all the world acknowledges, they cast a Papal Authority out of England, and not Patriarchal only: yet his dinstinguishing art must needs be brought in to blunder, as his custom is, with an If; (p. 46. 47.) If the Pope pretend only to be a Primate or Patriarch, etc. What If he be? why than he quotes himself to have done strange things against him in his book of Schism; where he tells us he hath evidenced, etc. and sufficiently justified their carriage against him: So strongly he disputes against us, and we must believe 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 itself, etc. 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, etc. So that first he overthrew us only 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 only telling him, that he may surely say he hath none. And indeed 'tis 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 custom hath now made it his proper privilege.  
But now comes the last onset, which massacres all out arguments and Grounds at once, threatening to remove all appearance of reason from this whole exception: which he does 1. by telling us, 'tis 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 pitiful, which must be maintained 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 ringleaders 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. removed 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 opened these Evidences of his too much; we will fold them up into Logical form, and there leave them. The Doctor disputes thus, The Pope being only a Patriarch, I have sufficiently justified 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 reason 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 nonsense 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 Universal Pastourshi●, undertakes to undo St. Peter's first; by showing that his Commission was limited to the jews only. To do which handsomely, he would limit the jurisdiction of each Apostle likewise to certain Provinces; lest his particular pique against the Pope's Predecessor S. Peter, should be too notorious, and manifest that his passion had engaged 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 jurisdiction, was so rare a novelty, that blind Antiquity never so much as dreamt on't, nor any Author, that I can ●ear of, ever so much as named or mentioned it before: he fetches the first root of their pedigree, their An est, from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the lot of Apostleship, and judas his proper place in Hell; which he will have signify, exclusive Provinces, restraining the jurisdiction or Power of each single Apostle.  
His Disarmer first showed, then challenged 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 sense, repugnant expressly 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, ashamed to father his own Grounds or his own words, (Answ: p. 38.) he denies that he meant 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 jews, exclusively to the Uncircumcision, etc. and no Evidences from Scripture pretended 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 its 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 its own light, and needs no other? But indeed that was not his intent then, but to show their jurisdictions 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 borrowed from the Cath Gent. For (besides that the Cath. Gent. puts only one exception against Mr. H's wrong interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas S. W. put seven) no honest man living who is true to his cause, and hath more regard to its good than to an airy flash of his own honour, will refuse to write to the same sense another hath writ before him, only because himself was not the first Author or Inventor of that sense; 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 originized from his own invention, but proposed first by another. In this manner all Catholic writers borrow all they write from the Church; striving to come as near her sense 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 sense of another: and account it his only vainglorious 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 pitiful 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. 'tis 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 only to answer the Cath. Gentleman's one exception, he should have answered beforehand, 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 itself, 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 downright and proper, sometimes bowed to a Metaphor, sometimes strained to a Catachresis, nay even sometimes taken absurdly and barbarously: so that, though the phrase or word seems oftentimes very odd in itself, 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 Author, to mistake, or be careless in the right use of a word; but absolutely impossible and a Contradiction, he should not understand his own meaning and intention, when he goes about to speak or write.  
Hence is evident how little is likely to be ever convinced, by Grammatical and Critical quibbling upon the dictionary signification of a word: and how little 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 itself, can signify either a lot, or whatever is obtained 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 itself, hath beat the air 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 Authors, it may probably have one acception in one, another in another; and perhaps a divers 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 little or nothing to the signification it ought to have in this.  
It were good sport for't one, who is at leisure and hath nothing else to do, to observe what havoc this plain Rule of interpreting Scripture rightly would make with Dr. H's critical Folio-Annotations on the Bi●le. We shall only 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 itself, or lastly subsequent in the effect of casting lots, why the thing received 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 meant to make up the number of the Apostles by substituting another in the place of judas) not to go to a lesser Province, but) Act. 1. v. 22. to witness with them the resurrection: which, though all grant it was performed by going several ways, yet there is no such thing there expressed, 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 numbered with us, signify that they had reflections on the imperfectness of their number, and the following words, and had obtained part of this ministry, make it impossible that a lesser province should be there signified: for, judas had not obtained a lesser province in his life-time, as Dr. H. grants in many places: which is confirmed by vers. 25. where it is said, that judas, by trangression, fell from his part of this ministry and Apostleship. Now, speaking properly, 'tis 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 ministry 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 only: therefore those words can with no propriety signify a lesser Province, but the Apostolical dignity only; and so it was the Apostles intention to surrogate S. Mathias only into this dignity.  
Next, as for the transaction of the business itself, it was only 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 its self. To come then to the effect subsequent to the casting of lots; nothing can be invented either plainer in its self, or more explicative of the former intention. The words are these, the lot fell upon Mathias; and the effect was, that he was numbered with the eleven Apostles. Relate these words to the 17. verse, For he (judas) was numbered with us; and to the following verses, importing thus much, that judas 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 expressed to be this, that he was numbered with the eleven Apostles. join the well ordered series of these circumstances together, which the very place itself affords and offers; and tell me good Reader, if it be likely any thing can be meant 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. called dit,) only upon a possibility that the word, taken in its 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 'tis 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 criticise upon each particular word taken in it sell; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 'tis left to be determined by other adjoining words, what kind of thing this was which was thus obtained. The words joined with it are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of this ministry 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 ministry, 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 ministry, etc. had it related to that province which judas had or should have had; but, being as it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this ministry, what could it mean but the present office of Apostleship, which the Apostles all at that time enjoyed, from which judas fell, and into which S. Mathias succeeded? Lastly, I would gladly know of him, whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. part of this ministry 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? judge then, indifferent Reader, what Evidences are to be expected from Dr. H. whose 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 borrowed from any other: which poor S. W. as he disgracefully objected to him, is glad to do, wanting (alas!) Dr. H's miraculous talon of interpreting Scripture so as no man living ever did before him; I may add, nor any wise man will ever do after him.   

Sect. 3.  
With what weak sleights Dr. H. would underprop his ruinous explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (judas 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. part, or the lot, of this ministry and Apostleship. Now follows the second, and the more famous one of the two, in the same v. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from which judas) as their own translation renders it) by transgression fell, that he might go 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 judas his own place in Hell; and that 'tis 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 judas; accusing the Cath. Gent. of uncharitableness for interpreting it so, in these words, (Repl. p. 53.) It was sufficient to say of judas that which had been said, v. 16. 17. 18. 19 to set out the horror of his Fact, and his bloody death; and that he needed not proceed to the revealing of secrets, etc. But I wonder what secret it is to say that judas 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 etc.) he could not retain a favourable opinion of salvation attainable by the maintainers of the breach between us (meaning the Pope and Cardinals, who had pronounced the Sentence of Excommunication against his Schismatical party,) nor by the Catholic 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 judas 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 judas, 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 befell him in this world. A weighty argument! as if any space of time intervened between wicked men's death and their being in Hell; and, as if their vengeance of damnation were not full 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 applied to mean mystically our Saviour's words of judas, 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 judas 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,) than he tells us his interpretation is clear and unavoidable. But, what means he when he tells us, that the parenthesis needs no more formal expression than only by putting a comma after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? would he have it a parenthesis or no? A parenthesis relates not to the sense of the foregoing nor following words; but leaves the sense entire though it be omitted: what is within commas only cannot always thus be omitted, without oftentimes maiming the sense. Again, how must a comma put after judas needs make his interpretation so clear and unavoidable; since he knows well that many, both Protestant and Catholic Commenters put the comma there, and yet avoid so easily his interpretation, that they never so much as dreamed 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 intervened; and then, let us see how Dr. H. puts his doctrine in practice: To receive (saith he) the lot of his ministry and Apostleship (from which judas 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 expressed parenthesis, though, while he was begging it of us, he seemed willing to be contented with a comma only; 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 ministry, etc. into his ministry 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 determined or present, but the office of an Apostle only (which he is resolved it shall 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 its signification (as is evident;) and so destroys all his pretence to have a parenthesis there; such a kind of reference being against its nature. Thirdly, the following words do not hang handsomely together with the precedent, unless This be changed into His; therefore 'twas 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 performed for the future, may go can signify futurely, which might go does not, as his Antagonist Will. Lily hath told him in his Potential mood. Such another trifling advantage he gains; 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 expressed 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 applied particularly to judas 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 judas 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 affirmed of Mathias his province; so his, as it is not any man's else: so I say, with the same reason, that those words may very fitly be affirmed of judas his place in Hell; it being so his, as it is not any man's else. Is not this an undaunted Adversary, who dares adventure to come into the lists of disputation, armed only with such Bulrushes as these?  
His last argument, which you must imagine his strongest, (for art and prudence both require this order) is this, (Repl. 53) that It is not near so proper to say, he sinned to go to Hell; as that the other was chosen and surrogated into judas 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 nonsense. But, I would know of Mr. H. where he ever found it rendered he sinned to go to Hell, except only 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 joined 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 conjoined with the rest in construction; and then, (to make the phrase sound absurdly and disgracefully) first, giveth the word such and English as was impossible it should bear in that place, (For, what sense make these words, from which judas sinned? next, begins the phrase at sinned, (which word he joins 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 go to Hell; whereas 'twas only 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 rendered in their own translation, from which judas by transgression fell, nay he rendered it so himself before, which will not let ignorance excuse him; and he knew well enough that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies plainly departed aside, prevaricated, went aside, etc. 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 nonsense, 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 authorise it by Testimonies; which he brags 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 eyesight; we will first put down his interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the very place which occasioned 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered 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 selfsame 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 says (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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. He calls that his own place which Mathias, so as it was just and fit should obtain: For, as judas 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 showed himself worthy of so great an Office. Where we hear no news of a lesser Province at all, as Dr. H. would persuade us to believe against our eye-verdict; but of an Office, which Judas had demerited by his former villainies 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 'twas so.  
The ●econd testimony is introduced with, The like again (as indeed it is) and borrowed from Oecumenius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. His own place he calls his suffocation, etc. or else judas 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 its signifying so in its self, nay from its having many significations) Mr. H. makes the order of dignity 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 its 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 expressed, 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 Authors 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 considered, little 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, we'll 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 perversely a self-imagined 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 only in the brain which bred the Chimaera. A Reverence, I say, and a tender respect is to be had to God's word; not wresting it to bear testimony to every falsehood 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 Authors; which they on set purpose sinisterly (but far more ingeniously and handsomely) 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 its self certain, suffers in its 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 quodlibetical trash? And, is not Faith itself by such a nonsensical debating it, (should no Profession of Christianity bring better arguments than this Doctor) liable to be imagined, by prudent men not yet acquainted with it, an idler and more groundless Story than the very tales of King Oberon and Robin Goodfellow?  
Two blasphemies then, Mr. H. attend your misinterpretations; I mean, such as Catholics 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 near as is in a man's power, to the sense the Context most strongly carries; at least, not abused and vilifyed 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 criticising, be deduced thence: which devolves into this, that God himself, the Author of Truth and the expresser of it in the holy Scripture, shall, by this means, become the Father of all falsehoods and the Author of every groundless and nonsensical absurdity. This manner of treating Scripture, then, we Catholics account in an high degree blasphemous; nay, to open the way to all blasphemousness: and this, because we do not dogmatise upon it or affix to it any interpretation that we build faith upon, which is not warranted by the Universal practice of the Church, and our Rule of Faith, Universal Tradition: though we know 'tis 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 tenor 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 itself, 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 Successor the Pope can have none. The consequence we grant to be valid; founding the Authority of the latter upon his succeeding the former: But we absolutely deny the Antecedent, to wit, that S Peter had no Supremacy, that is, supreme power and jurisdiction 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 Universal jurisdiction, (from parag. 5. to parag. 20.) Secondly, (from thence to the end of the Chapter) from his not having the Power of the Keys as his peculiar●●ty and enclosure; 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 Universal jurisdiction, 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, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, judas his place in Hell: (of Schism p. 71.) that the jews only were S. Peter's Province; nay, that but one portion of the dispersed jews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's jurisdiction: that the Gentiles were S. Paul's, etc. and all this undertaken there to be evidenced by testimonies from Scripture, Fathers, and other Authors.  
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 itself 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 jurisdiction to the jews only, and S. Paul's to the Gentiles by his pretended proofs; his Disarmer offered him, p. 52. that Peter's Authority from the Gentiles, more than what himself puts in of his own head, he would be content to yield him the whole Controversy; which he vindicated, to the very eyes of the Reader, from every testimony, one by one, alleged 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 unheardof 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 Catholic, Protestant, or of whatever other profession) that now the very point of the Controversy is in agitation: For we pretend no tenor for the Pop'es Supremacy, save only 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 entreat thee, on the grievousness of the charge laid 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 examined it well, (I am a party, and so must not be a judge) lay thou the blame where thou shalt find the fault. Neither despair that thou hast ability enough to be a competent judge 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 jurisdiction of S. Peter, or whether they were only the additions of Dr. H. antecedently or subsequently to the testimonies?  
But what needs any judge to determine or decide that which Dr. H. himself hath confessed here in his Reply and Answer? where seeing it impossible to show any one word, in all that army of Testimonies which he mustered up there, limiting S. Peter's jurisdiction to the jews, 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 meant exclusiveness of ●urisdiction; that is, to deny his own express words, the whole tenor of his discourse there, the main scope and intention of that Chapter' and last to change and alter the state and face of the whole Question. This is my present charge against him, consisting of these four 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 condemnation imaginable from all sincere Readers; since it is impossible to imagine 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 meant Exclusiveness of jurisdiction. For, of Schism p. 70. he uses the very word exclusively, saying that S. Peter was Apostle of the jews exclusively to the Gentiles: and, that this exclusiveness was meant to be of jurisdiction, is no less expressly manifested from the following page; where it is said, that but one portion of the dispersed jews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's jurisdiction, 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, etc. and sure if he have no right to preach to any other Provinces, he hath no jurisdiction at all over them.  
Secondly, the whole tenor of the discourse there manifests that he meant exclusiveness of jurisdiction.▪ 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 jurisdiction of that Metropolis belonged to james the Just, and not to Peter: of Sschism, p. 73. S. Paul's independence on S. Peter: pag. 74. to wit, in jurisdiction 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 jurisdiction over the Churches of Asia? p. 83. No other Apostle could countermand S. Paul's instructions, no appeal left, etc. p. 83. S. Peter's baptising in Britain must in all reason be extended no farther than this his line, Id est, to the jews which might at that time be dispersed there, etc. p. 84. All which render it most manifest, that he meant Exclusiveness of jurisdiction and power to preach to another line or Province; if there were any tenor or connexion at all in his discourse, and that it rambled not forwards blindly, himself knew not how nor whither.  
Thirdly and lastly, not only the whole Controversy of Schism is about the limitation or illimitation, exclusiveness or not exclusiveness, of the Pope's jurisdiction, and the Doctor's tenet, that this jurisdiction 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 Universal jurisdiction, therefore his Successor the Pope can have none. This being so, who sees not that, since the thing to be inferred is the Pope's limitation of jurisdiction, as held by the Protestants, that is such a limitation as debats and excludes him from any lawful power or right at all to intermeddle with more than is his imagined Province; and that this inference is built upon his succeeding a limited Predecessor S. Peter: who sees not, I say, that the Antecedent must mean S. Peter's jurisdiction was so limited to his supposed Province, that he had no jurisdiction or power at all to meddle with a Gentile; but that it was against right and unlawful 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 jurisdictions 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 produced there to prove it; it follows that he acknowledges S. W. charge to be true; (Schism Disarmed 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 only what the Doctor puts in of his own head: as he shows 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 thoughts 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 its 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 jurisdiction; 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 Successor, had an Universal or limited jurisdiction, extending his power to all, or excluding it from all but his pitiful 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 says that what was signified by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (or exclusive Provinces belonging to each Apostle, which was shown plainly before to be his express meaning) is evident by its 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 near, if not perfectly, equal all the rest that are found in his whole book. So that, either he must confess he spent the most substantial part of his book to evidence that which needed no Evidencing, but was Evident by its own light; or else, (which is the truth of the business) that he hath changed the whole question here from what it was there: For there it was of Exclusive jurisdiction, and therefore very obscure, needing the pretence of many testimonies (though dumb) and his own Id ests and voluntarily added words, to make it seem evident; here it is only 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 tenor of his whole discourse; and the state of the whole question manifesting he both did and could not but mean it of exclusive jurisdiction, (as hath been most expressly 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. etc. he complains that S. W. would conclude from his words, that he would have all the Apostles to have several Provinces limiting their jurisdictions, & 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 jurisdiction, and how openly he prevaricates from all the four formerly-mentioned pretences, shown already to have been his own; which were the strongest rises 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 alleged he complains of me, that I would conclude from his words that the Apostles had Provinces exclusive of one another's right, yet his own plain words, Repl. pag. 56. l. 2. 5. most expressly 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 handsome?  
His fifth self contradiction is a very neat one. According to this place alleged, S. Peter ●s Province is so his, as excludes him from any farther right; that is, from any right to Preach to another's Province; yet in the same, Sect. p 57 l. 18. he grants it lawful for S. Peter to Preach to Gentiles; that is, to those of Paul's S. Province. Now we duller Souls imagined that right & lawfulness was all one, & that no man could lawfully do what he had no right to do, but Dr. H. confronts & counterposes these two identical 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 express 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 do it wrongfully. Thus self-unkind Sosia beats himself according as the change of his unconstant & fantastical Grounds puts his mind in several Shapes.  
His sixth self contradiction touches more particularly this point in hand of exclusive Provinces; He tells us (of Schism, p. 70.) that Authority and Commission was given to all the Apostles indefinitely and unlimitedly, not restrained by Christ's words to any particular Province; and again (Repl. p 55.) speaking of the particular assignations of S. Peter to the jews & S. Paul to the Gentiles, he affirms expressly, 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 form, saying that S. Paul had his assignation immediately from Christ. So utterly void of all truth is this Chimaera 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 suits 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 limited, which, as coming from Christ was held by all to be unquestionably Universal; but in the last place, where he had undertaken to show S. Paul's independence on S. Peter, it favoured more his intent to say, that he had his assignation immediately from Christ; lest S. Paul should have any dependence at all on S. Peter, no not even 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 me, 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 says is excluded from any right to preach to another's Province, and there can be no more Provinces or people to Preach to than jews & 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 alleged to any but S. Peter & S. Paul in order to the jews & the Gentiles. This kind favour not withstanding done to the rest of the Apostles, he afterwards spoils, by giving them Provinces too; treating them as discourreous Schoolmasters use to treat their Scholars; that is, first giving them leave to play while the supplicant is present, but, he being gone & the circumstance changed, enjoining them a task as laborious as had been their School exercise itself. When S. Peter's Universal jurisdiction was to be limited, than it went currant that the jews 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 jews 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 Authority: wherefore finding that such and such Apostles preached in such & such a place to the jews, he thought it best to call the jews there their Province; So that good S. Peter (whom all antiquity flattered it seems with the title of Prince or Head of the Apostles) hath allotted him by Christ's Head-Steward Dr. H. (of Schism, p. 71. l. 21. 22.) no more but one portion (or a few miserable Parishes) of the dispersed jews to be under his jurisdiction 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 unless it be laughed at. Next, he tells me that I never offer to consider the allegations by which it was made evident. I Answer, sure Dr. H. is a sleep, I considered in Schism Disarmed each allegation of his minutely & particularly through six whole Sections, that is from p. 42. till p. 87. & offered to yield him the whole controversy, if he could show me the least word in any one of them limiting S. Peter's jurisdiction 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 confess my ill nature, I never relent into retractation of my tenet upon the persuasion of contradiction. Rhetoric, though oftentimes I may relent into a smile, mingled either with pity, if I see the fault was ignorance, or else with just zeal & scorn when I see Souls trained to Hell by wilful frauds. Lastly, he asks, upon this occasion, what contradictories may not this wonderworking 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. etc.) he would evade his own implicatory position in which he was entangled by telling us, he meant only 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. Peter's Baptising & constituting Bishops in Brittany, he tells us, it must in all reason be extended no farther than S. Peter's line, as he was Apostle of the Circumcision, Id est (saith he) to the jews that might at that time be dispersed there. In which place he manifestly makes S. Peter's Province exclusive in Brittany, where he never pretends that S. Paul met him; though before he told us that the agreement between S. Peter & S. Paul was only exclusive when they met at the same City, etc. How powerful & 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 immediately from Christ's assignation; yet maugre both these (Repl. 58. par. 5.) he makes S. Paul's peculiar Province Spring only from the jews refusing & rejecting his doctrine; only, I say; for he affirms there expressly that till the jews refused & rejected it, he does not betake himself so peculiarly to the Gentiles; whence follows, in all likelihood, that if the jews had not rejected Christ's doctrine, tendered by S. Paul, that Apostle had never gone peculiarly to the Gentiles, 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 jews is that which S. w. puts for the reason of his peculiar Apostleship & the Appellation of Apostle of the Gentiles ensuing thereupon.  
These & some others are the self-contradictions with which this Adversary of mine, seeing it impossible to show one word in any testimony excluding & limiting the jurisdiction of the Apostles, shuffles to & fro on all sides, that so what ever position he should be challenged with he may slip & avoid it by showing (as he easily may) that he said in another place the express 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 weaknese, & waving all his self said affirmations, his Gentile nonsense, his pious formalities, will press 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 remained still illimited & Universal, not witstanding this imagined designation; if it remained still unlimited and Universal, how can the Pope's Authority be concluded limited from his succeeding S. Peter, if S. Peter's remained ever unlimited? But, if his Authority & jurisdiction 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 shameful charge laid against them particularly by S. W. that there is not one wordin them limiting the Apostles jurisdictions, 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 less than 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 access of fresh self-contradictions follow out of his newly-invented tenet of exclusiveness of jurisdiction, then only when the Apostles met in the same City.  
AFter his self-contradictions march his lesser absurdities, not so bulky & substantial ones as the former, yet still his, & too big to be wielded by any man but Dr. H. nor by him neither, unless the necessity of a bad cause, incumbent on him to defend, had added to him such an increase of strength as uses to proceed from desperation. But, not to take notice of them all, I will only 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 expressed (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 jew; 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) than the one should constantly apply himself to the jews, receive Disciples, form them into a Church, leave them to be governed by a Bishop of his assignation, and the other should do in like manner to the Gentiles. Thus he very pithily: let us unfold & lay open what he has (as his custom is) involued here, & see what a heap of weaknesses lies sweeting 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 only put as an instance of their imagined exclusive jurisdictions, & introduced 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 exclusiveness of jurisdiction, which before made such a loud sound, is now only come to be such when they met at the same City; &, by consequence, abstracting from that circumstance, S. Peter had Universal Authority: which is a great largeness of his towards S. Peter, and I wonder whence this kindness 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 only at Rome & at Antioch, it follows that, as far as Dr. H. knows, S. Peter's jurisdiction was universal over both jews and Gentiles in all the world besides; & at all other times except only those short seasons in which they met together. Fourthly, it follows that the Pope's Authority is not limited save only where he meets S. Paul or his Successors, (or perhaps, as he needs will have it, S. john) and then I conceive it will be very ample.  
Fifthly, since he grants, that both the Congregations of jews & Gentiles were joined in one under Pope ●lement (of Schism, p. 79.) that Pope by consequence succeeded them both; & so the exclusiveness of S. Peter's jurisdiction, when he met S. Paul, cannot possibly infer such an exclusiveness or limitation of jurisdiction in the now Popes, or the Popes which have been since the imagined conjunction of those Congregations▪ however h● may pretend it makes against the universal jurisdictions 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.) lays the Axe to the root and stocks up Rome's universal Pastourship.  
Sixthly, the question being turned into exclusiveness of jurisdiction when they met in the same City only▪ it follows, there is not the least pretence of a testimony from Scripture for this position thus stated; for 'tis no where found nor pretended to be found in Scripture, that their jurisdictions were only 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 jurisdictions in Rome & Antioch, but only those which affirmed that they preached, 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 jurisdictions, falls short of what he alleges it for, affirming only, that when they met at the same City one should constantly apply himself to the Gentiles the other to the jews. Now the prudent consideration of circumstances may determine one man to do constantly this thing, another to do constantly another thing, without inferring that either of them lost their right to do the other, by this constancy of action exercised upon this one. By which faltering mistake of his own words we may see, that when he alleges them now, as a sufficient expression of his tenet of exclusiveness, he only sought to escape from & change his former question; and to evade, by virtue of the more moderate word [constantly] which standing in the confines between exclusiveness & not exclusiveness, might, at a dead litf, by the Midwifery of an Id est, or a criticism, bring forth either signification.  
Ninthly, the jews (according to Dr. H.) being S. Peter's Province exclusively to the Gentiles, & not exclusively till they met in one City; it follows that, unless 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 spoiled; yet 'tis 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 months. before S. Paul (and we cannot imagine their correspondence so precise, nor their employments other where so indifferent, but this might very easily & very often happen) than it must follow, that that Apostle had universal Authority to preach to both till S. Paul come, nor can we imagine him idle or negligent to do 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 ordered, and the Gentiles settled thus under S. Peter, S. Paul arrives at the City. Then begins the hurly-burly. S. Peter's Authority, which before extended to both Nations, begins suddenly to feel the cramp & convulsion-fits, & shrinks up to the jews only; &, in all probability, a very few, perchance twenty or thirty more or less may be imagined to live in that City S. Peter's jurisdiction 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, Pastor & more than father S. Peter) must presently change their Master, & do 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 jurisdiction 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 jews, as his custom was, than the poor jews must avoid S. Paul's Congregation & run to S. Peter's Church assoon as he 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 imagine, that S. Peter's jurisdiction, which had felt a kind of Winter-Season during S. Paul's residence there, he departing, begins to feel a happy Spring, budding now & Sprouting out a fresh towards the Gentiles. So that now the Scene of jurisdiction & 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 falls 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 & goodness for it, not to his grounds of illimited jurisdiction 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 itself destroys 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 jurisdictions 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 do him the favour. And the like must we imagine in case a jew went to S. Paul Last when those two Apostles preached Christ's faith publicly (as their custom was) then, in case S. Peter had spied some Gentiles or S. Paul some jews coming to their Sermon, presently (as if some excommunicated person had come in presence) all must be supposed to be hushed, & the Sermon quashed; else we must imagine 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 jurisdiction 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 means, his saying here it is not unlawful to preach to another's Province, & yet saying (Repl. p. 56. l. 2.) he had no right to do 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 served his turn best) made it come from three other several causes and some of them contradictories; to wit, immediately from Christ's assignation; not from Christ, but from agreement among themselves; and lastly, only from the jews 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 exclusiveness of jurisdiction to arise from the same circumstance of meeting S. Paul in the same City, & yet (of Schism, p. 84.) excluding S. Peter from meddling with Gentiles in Brittany, into which country he pretends not to show S. Paul came, much less met him there in the same City? what means his stating here S. Peter's jurisdiction not exclusive, that is illimited till he meets S. Paul, and yet (of Schism p. 71. l. 21. 24.) stating the same jurisdiction exclusive to all but one portion only of the dispersed jews, without reference at all to S. Paul's meeting or not meeting him, but to the division of places & Provinces only. Lastly, what meant he to talk of evidencing his then tenet from Scripture, & yet the exclusiveness of jurisdiction only 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 rational man see & make every sincere man acknowledge, that he cares not a pin what he says, nor what nonsense he deludes his Reader with provided he delude him civilly, courteously & gently; 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 sense & truth in honest English.   

Sect. 6.  
The Question concerning his imagined Exclusive Provinces stated and cleared. A plain Explication of the place, Gal. 2. upon which he grounds them.  
HAving thus laid open how Dr. H. shuffles about to avoid the effects of his own position; we will proceed to examine the point itself, and lastly Answer his testimonies alleged to conclude these exclusive Provinces. Concerning the point itself four positions are to be considered, which may be imagined 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 go one or more to such or a Province. The third is, that they so agreed to go 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 jurisdiction was included within such a Province, and excluded from all other imagined Provinces.  
The first is evident & confessed, but nothing at all to our question which is concerning limitation or illimitation of jurisdiction; 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 jurisdictions Universal from Christ, thought it more discreet & fitting to go some one way, some another, therefore their jurisdictions become limited; which is as much as to say, that when Christ gave to each Universal jurisdiction, & sent them to teach all Nations, he meant they should all go one way, for otherwise (according to this manner of arguing) had he meant they should go several ways, it could not consist with that present intention of his to give them at that very time universal jurisdiction.  
The second, to wit that they all made a part or positive agreement to go determinate several ways, or to such particular places, is very obscure, & rather related as a thing imagined or opinionated to have been, then asserted and manifested by any authentic proof. Nor does it at all touch our question, which is about jurisdiction, unless it can be proved that they made a part of exclusive o● limited jurisdiction; 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 & less authentic than the former, no exact Itinerary of their travels being extant, much less of their nonplus vltras by pact & agreement, but all the whole business is left to blind and inconsequent conjectures, according as they were found or observed to have preached in one Country, and not observed to have done so in another, but whether persecution, a mutual 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 jurisdiction; since prudent consideration of circumstances might be of force to determine 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 jurisdiction given by Christ; and so it cannot bear any show of inference, that they agreed to limit the power itself, (about which our controversy is) because they agreed to limit the exercise of that power.  
The fourth position, which concerns the exclusiveness of their jurisdiction from all save their own Provinces, & is the only thing which can seem to advantage Mr. H. or concern our question, which is about the limitation of jurisdiction, is absolutely false & utterly groundless, not warranted by any one testimony; first invented by Mr. H's fancy, 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 alleged to prove it; not owned constantly by Dr. H. in his Answers, but absolutely prevaricated from & denied, though at the cost of so many & so gross 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 immediate 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 find it in their own translation, then explicate it; whether with more consonancy to all circumstances, than Dr. H's, Exclusive jurisdiction 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 james Cephas & john who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace which was given unto me, they gave me & Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the Circumcision, only they would that we should remember the poor, etc. This is the place upon which Mr. H. builds his tenet of exclusive Provinces; with what right let this plain & connatural explication inform the Reader.  
Our Blessed Lord & Saviour determined the conversion of his elect both of jews & Gentiles, & had already sent down his holy Spirit upon his Apostles in Jerusalem, where upon their zeal inciting them, & the place they were in giving them occasion, they added, by their preaching, multitudes of the jews to the new-growing Church. Still the Gentiles, out of judea 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) natural & 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, enlightened the eyes of his mind by striking blind those of his body, made him powerfully his, told him his errand, that he should carry his name before the Gentiles: not that his commission should extend to them only (since the Commission given by Christ to each Apostle is acknowledgedly universal) 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 preached commonly & earnestly to the jews. Where he was converted, there he immediately 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. Upon this he is forced to come to judea to confer his doctrine with the other Apostles and receive their approbations; which they found exact & entire, expressed by those words, nihil comulerunt, they in conference added nothing to me. S. Paul having thus given account of his doctrine, & the efficacy of his preaching to the Gentiles, and the Apostles finding that S. Peter was in like manner eminently & particularly efficacious in converting the jews in judea (expressed 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 thrived best among the Gentiles & S. Peter best among the jews (the greatest harvest of which was found in judea) S. Paul should go ●ut of judea to the Gentiles, & take Barnabas with him; S. Peter with therest remain in Judea still to preach to the jews; and this is all the business 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 judea or the jews there, not those in dispersion; and of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the Gentiles to be those out of judea. Now, if this be so then to omit all which hath been said formerly, Dr. H's assigning S. Peter (of Schism, p. 71.) only the Apostleship of some of the jews in dispertion, by founding the exclusiveness of his Authority upon this place, vanishes into it's original nothing; for, in case any distribution of Provinces be signified here, S. Peters' must be the jews at home, in judea, not those abroad or in dispertion, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denote here only judea, or the jews in it.  
Now the reasons for this explication of mine, are, first because the efficacy of S. Peter's preaching to the circumcision had been experienced with in judea, S. Paul's over the Gentiles, without judea; & consequently their severing themselves, being upon this account, should mean that one should stay where he had experienced such fruit, that is, in judea, the other go where he had found the like, that is, out of judea. Secondly, the words very well bear it; since the jews do not live united in any considerable confluence, save in judea, nor the Gentiles but out of it, which is the thing that gives a common denomination to a people. Thirdly, S. Paul's words, only they would that we should remember the poor, immediately following, show plainly the meaning is that he was designed by these words to go out of judea, & therefore desired to remember the poor which were in judea, as he accordingly did, Rom. 15. v. 25. 26. But now I go to Jerusalem 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 Jerusalem. Fourthly, the Phaenomena of all the circumstances favour it. Fifthly the place of Theophylact cited by Dr. H. (Answ. p. 40.) is express for it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. S. Paul, being come to judea, he departed thence, both because he was sent a Preacher to the Gentiles, and because he would not build on another's foundation. Sixthly, S. Hierome upon that place is most clearly for it; where he makes the sum of S. Paul's words to be these, me misit ad Gentes, illum posuit in judea; he sent me to the Gentiles, & put or placed him in judea. 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 judea only.  
This remaining of S. Peter in judea, & S. Paul's removal out of it, seemed then best for the present circumstances, but was far from signifying exclusiveness from another's Province for the future; it being well known that S. Peter preached out of Judea afterwards, to wit at Antioch, Rome & other places; The sum 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 jews, others go abroad among the Gentiles; which by consequence was only to consent to do prudently, not to make a formal bargain or pact, much less perpetuity of such a pact; lest of all does it, even intimate the limitation of power & jurisdiction, 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 foredetermined by God's will, consequently there was no more exclusiveness after then before their agreement, nor their subsequent agreement any farther designation (as D. H. calls it) in respect of S. Peter & S. Paul, than 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 Uncircumcision 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 showed 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 Apostleship of the jews, 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 jurisdiction 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 Uncircumcision, etc. 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 jurisdiction, much less from limiting it, every Child may discern.  
Again, to speak properly, & according to the force of the Greek, their going into divers 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 than 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 divers places was a mere accident; unless we will say that S. Peter would not have acknowledged his doctrine good, nor receive him into communion but upon promise that he should go out of judea. To omit, that both the scope of S. Paul's journey, & the Scripture's expressing that this was the result of it, jointly with the consent of interpreters do force us to this exposition of that place. Again, it is impossible these words, speaking literally, & properly, should signify an agreeing to go to several 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 signify in the Greek simply they agreed; and lastly, because an half point in the Greek copies at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, communion or fellowship, disjoins 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 mere 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 Jerusalem, 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 only this of God's 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 only 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 understanding that the subscribing to a former designation, or proceeding to act according to it, is in itself no new, or farther-designation as he calls it) nicknames this explication of mine one little deceit of S. W. which the Catholic Gent. had not attained to. And truly 'tis so little, that without the magnifying glass of passion & prejudice, which enhances nothing to great somethings, & makes vast beams of matters slenderer than moats, it cannot at all be discernible. It shall be D. H's honour to be the Author of great deciets, & self-contradictions which neither unskilful S. W. nor the Catholic Gent. dare aspire to.  
Again, were it a deciet to say, that there were no other assignation there expressed, 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 fellowship, the agreement that was made betwixt them, etc. is sure the interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which if it be so, to wit, that their entrusting expressed antecedently have the same sense as their subsequent agreement, than I wonder what is become of his farther designation, since one is but the interpretation of the other, that is hath the same sense with the other.   

Sect. 7▪  
The Examination of five Testimonies brought in recruit for his exclusive Provinces; of which the first is expressly against himself; the next three, even in his own grounds, impertinent to our Question; and the first borrowed from the Arch heretic Pelagius, and falsified to boot.  
AT present we have no more to do, but to Answer his lately gleaned testimonies, huddled together confusedly in his Answ. p. 39 40. And though, when reason is to manage the business, we are to expect nothing but contradictions from this Dr. as himself has amply informed us; yet, being now got into his own element of comon-place-book testimony-parcels, we must imagine his art is at its vertical height.  
The first is from S. Ambrose on Gal. 2. 8. which I shall transcribe as I find 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 Primacy to found the Church, and he likewise is chosen to have the Primacy of founding the Churches of the Gentiles: where, first, if Primatus signifies Primacy of jurisdiction (and unless it signifies so 'tis nothing to our question, which is about jurisdiction only) than it is not possible to imagine a testimony more expressly for our tenet of S. Peter's universal jurisdiction and greater than S. Paul's, than this which he alleges 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 exclusiveness or shadow of exclusiveness found in that place as I see none) than it ought in all reason be the exclusiveness of S. Paul from the jews, since he is particularised by it to the Gentiles; and not of S. Peter from any, who is not particularised here at all to any part or portion of the Church, but extended to all, unless D. H. will say, that the word [Ecclesia, Church] signifies a piece of the Church only. This testimony therefore might serve to some purpose, were it brought to prove that S. Peter's jurisdiction was Universal, & 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 sense as applied 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 under 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. endeavours here, by making him believe that testimony of S. Peter's Primacy to build the Church, signifies that he was only over the jews; and that not all these neither, but only 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 he alleges be indifferent, for him or against him (as hath been shown all over in Schism Disarmed) so he can dazzle a vulgar headed reader's eyes with the glorious pretence of a father's or council'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 only, and so under him.  
The second testimony is from S. Chrysostom, saying that S. Paul demonstrates himself to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and compares himself with Peter the chief of them. Thus he. In Answer. First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies any kind of extrinsecall honour, whether it springs from better parts, greater efficacy, more industry in preaching, or from what so ever cause and not only from dignity of jurisdiction, it follows likewise that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in its 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 jurisdiction; and the like may be said of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, since of itself it only signifies that S. Paul compared himself to S. Peter; but, in which of the former regards this comparison was made, the general 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 itself, of which this is the explication; which being Gal. 2 8. where there is nothing at all relating to jurisdiction but to efficatiousness in preaching to jews and Gentiles, of this therefore the comparison between these two Apostles must be understood; in this respect only must they necessarily be signified by these words to have been equally-dignified, and not in jurisdiction 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; 'Tis this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he shows himself equal 〈◊〉 Peter: which words D. H. citys, but leaves out the words immediately 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 honoured with Peter, for he who had given to Peter efficacy of preaching to the jews gave me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same towards the Gentiles. Where nothing is or can be more evident than this, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there spoken of was the self same as was expressed by the (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the selfsame efficacy of preaching, which nothing concerns equality or superiority of power or command in order to Government, as plain sense 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 runs under ground a long way and then rises up again in the Euxine) skulks under a parenthesis in which the two late Testimonies are found, and shows its Head again at the end of it in this form. Paul's perfect Authority is found in preaching to the Gentiles. Where, the first part of the testimony is expressly contrary to Dr. H. this granting that each might preach to either, he denying they had right to do so, Repl. p. 56. and that S. Peter had no jurisdiction save over one portion only of the dispersed jews (of Schism p. 71.) The second part of it which concerns plena authoritas, full Authority or power, is only meant of greater powerfulness and authoritative efficacity in preaching, not of fuller power of jurisdiction. 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 imagines to signify jurisdiction; and particularly upon Dr. H's grounds which makes no designation of Provinces till the agreement expressed as he will needs have it in the 9 v. by their giving the right hands of fellowship; to which this special efficacity of preaching, mentioned in the, 8. v. and it's exposition are antecedent. Again suppose it signified full power of jurisdiction yet there wants (when they met in the same City only) to make it express for Mr. H's tenet; So that neither can it concern our question of jurisdiction; 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 expressly contend that preaching or converting is nothing to the matter of jurisdiction and therefore not argumentative for us to infer S. Peter's larger jurisdiction from his preaching to more: Now then, since the Authority here spoken of is only in praedicatione, in preaching (as the testimony itself inform us) consequently it can neither concern our question which is about jurisdiction, 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 he tells us) that the Churches of the jews 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 james and john to the jews. 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 special concurrence had manifested to be best in those circumstances. To act, I say, not to make a formal and perpetual 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 perpetuity of such a right, and exclusiveness; neither of which are any where expressed in this testimony.  
As for the first part of this place concerning the severing of the jewish and Gentile Churches. First I Answer, that I doubt not but the Apostles did prudently let them use their devotions a part as long as the jewish customs were in fresh observation, and therefore the conjunction of them in common Acts of devotion would have been subject to breed offence and scandals; but, I deny absolutely that which can serve Dr. H's turn, to wit, that they used 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 only occasional at first and so easily by degrees alterable, pass into ecclesiastical 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 scandal which occasioned 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 little commonwealths of them or assigning them distinct Magistrates to govern them: which had they done who sees not but by taking a way the Unity of Government they had established the division. Such was evidently the Apostles demeanour here, such their intentions; to wit, as much as they could without scandalising either party, to bring them to Unity and Uniformity into one Church and to Unite them in him whom they taught to be the head cornerstone, Christ jesus, in whom was no distinction of jew and Gentile: And surely had the distraction in the Primitive Church been thus continued by Apostolical agreement to sever them as distinct Provinces and constitute over them opposite-litled Bishops we should both have heard news of ●ome of those Bishops expressed by some testimony from antiquity to have been over jews only or Gentiles only; and also have heard of their reuniting after wards under one common Bishop, and how the former Bishops, either one or both, were dispossessed or lost their place. Yet not a syllable could Dr. Hammond find to express 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 ancient writers may lead him; as hath been shown particularly in Schism Disarmed. Part. 1. Sect. 10. 11. 12.  
Secondly, to return to our Testimony Dr. H. prettily joins these two places together thus, S. Hierom having affirmed on Gal. 1. 22. that the jewish and Gentile Churches were severed, adds (saith he) on this verse of c. 2. that they agreed that S. Paul should preach to the Gentiles, etc. 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 adds in his comment on the second,) as if the second place following so 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 adds) that the severing of Churches expressed in the first place relates to their agreement found in the latter, which would have made some show of a proof. But, alas, how far are these two from being added together or conjoined? This pretended agreement among the Apostles to which the second part of the Testimony relates, happening fourteen years 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, etc. So that the meaning of Dr. H's (having affirmed he adds) comes to this, that, having affirmed one thing in one place he adds another thing in another, which happened fourteen years after, and indeed much longer the scandal between the jews and the Gentiles having been much ancienter, and ever since the beginning of the preaching of the saith to both. Thus Dr. H. civility abuses his Reader; and, as long as he does it civility, S. W. must not be angry with him or if he does he must not hope to go to heaven as Dr. H. hath told him from Scripture, p. 3.  
What is said hitherto is pretty but yet Dr. H. uses to be kinder when he alleges testimonies and either brings such as are expressly against him, as he did lately from S. Ambrose, and in many other places; or else contradicts himself; let us examine this a while and we shall see, he 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 several Provinces both because I find the word (sever) which he uses in his inference no where but in that place only; 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 imagined lesser Provinces of jews and Gentiles were assigned by Apostolical agreement, not by Christ; as he amply declares himself of Schism p. 70. And that this agreement was that which is expressed Gal. 2. v. 8. 9 etc. as he expresses himself in many other places of the two Provinces of jews and Gentiles. Now than this place of S. Hierom's being (as he says) 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 several lesser Provinces, as deducible from this testimony, were fourteen years before they were. But this is a contemptible contradiction in Mr. H. who aims at higher matters. So much for the upshot of Dr. H. (having affirmed, he adds) which signifies thus much that S. Hierom. having affirmed one thing in one place, and on an occasion happening at such a season, he adds 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 joins together, and then lays the blame on S. Hierom.  
Thus much to show 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 heretic, nay in all probability the Arch heretic Pelag●us, and this confessed by all sides both Catholics and Protestants, and moreover most unlikely to be unknown to Dr. H. what characters shall we 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 heretics 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 devil'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 happed 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, aught to be their first task; but most necessarily and specially theirs who undertake to write and print controversies of religion; the main universal importance of the employment engaging them to look with the perfectest care how they play their game when Souls lie 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 be also much read in books of this nature, his candour 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 heretics not a Catholics▪ That Dr. H. had so little 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 little 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 myself, but I suppose his friends, who have a great opinion of his general reading, will think it not candidly done after they consider this which follows.  
Two commentaries on the Galatians are entitled 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 go 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 only 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) joined 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 heretic Pelagius. For that father in his third book de peccatorum meritis & remissione c. 1. says that he had read the short commentaries of Pelagius upon all the Epistles of Paul; and in the same book c. 12. he citys 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. Upon. 1. Cor. 4. Phil. 1. and 3. Upon 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 show them to be none of S. Hierom. that Ambrose Catharinus thinks that Pe●agius writ them, because upon the sixth and ninth add Rom. he teaches that eternal 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 madness to think that original sin was derived from Adam. After this he quotes Victorius and Bellarmine, and says 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 thyself, 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-heretics; yet, when they are put to it to maintain their paradoxical 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, only 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 so mainly relied 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 piece up that one word, as shall be seen hereafter.  
Thus much to show how weak this Testimony is in itself had it been true, and how the Dr. falsifies its 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 james and john to the jews whereas there is no news of any agreement expressed 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 no comment at all found save only 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 only this, ambo enim missi erant simul ut 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, expressed both by his special cooperation with them, as also by those words, separate for me Paul and Barnabas, etc. the testimony alleged says nothing. Now Dr. H. building mainly upon this agreement and expressly citing this place for it where no agreement at all is found, 'tis most manifest that he hath falsified the words of the testimony aswell as its Authority.   

Sect. 8.  
Two other Testimonies for the same point scanned: the first abused, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Being come to judea 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 he say, he could not build on another's foundation, or, as Dr. H. expresses it Reply p. 56. had not right to do 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 judea, where S. Peter had experienced the like fruit; which was, in other language, to leave a place where his preaching was most needful and most particularly fruit full, and stay in another where his preaching was needles and not so particularly fruitful. Is this any thing at all to our question of limited or unlimited jurisdiction. 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 Christ's words to any particular Province, and in particular speaking of S. Paul's Province, Repl. p. 55. l. 31. So that the bringing this proof for lesser Provinces, is perfectly frivolous and self-contradictory. Thirdly, this testimony is upon, Gal. 1. 21. and speaks of his coming to Judea to see Peter, which was more than fourteen years before his next coming thither, Gal. 2. when this distribution of those lesser Provinces by agreement are pretended to be made. This is seen most evidently from the direct tenor of those places counting exactly the years; I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, Gal. 1. 18. After, I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Gal. 1. 21. After which immediately follows, Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, etc. at which time the pretended agreement was made and the right hands of fellowship given, (as is to be seen 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. etc. and in many other places so that we see this second going up to Jerusalem, when the Provinces are imagined to be given, was fourteen years after his being in judea mentioned 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 than 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 terms, being come to judea he departed thence, etc. 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 only to see Peter, which happened before that agreement, whence he deduces these lesser Provinces of S. Peter and S. Paul, it had been manifestly discovered to be perfectly useless to prove that there were such lesser Provinces at all. These words therefore hewarily leaves out lest they should quite disgrace the rest. The testimony entirely recited is this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. coming to judea only to see Peter; which former words being so few, so linked in context with the other words, and so 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 testimony so 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 jest, fall to do it in earnest; and that, so openly and manifestly as is impossible either to be cloaked, 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 myself to their censure if he be found excusable. To put all clearer I will fully transcribe from the place alleged.  
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 special importance, (saith S. chrysostom) of the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but chose] the beginning of v. 7. as that is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their adding to him, v. the 6. james saith he, and Peter and john were so far from opposing any thing that he had done, from advising any thing more, from telling him any circumstance more than before he knew, that they not only 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 mixed of jews and Gentiles Peter and john should betake themselves to the jewish, and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile part of it. And here I find the first full stop, all the rest being commas, which followed the, [saith he] to wit, S. Chrysostom's by which 'tis 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 he] went upon S. Chrysostom's account, and were alleged 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 Jerusalem to communicate the gospel he preached to them who were of reputation, Peter, james, and john, who as he affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in conference added nothing to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but chose, 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 chose] some affirm S. Paul says that they not only not taught him, but were taughtly him; but I should not say so, save only 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 alleged. Here, reader, thou seest what S. Chrysostom makes the spec all importance of the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but chose] to be; to wit that they praised him, praising being contrary to blaming.  
Hence appears the first wilful falsification of Dr. H. who having spoken of S, Paul's having a Province entrusted to him by Apostolical agreement, immediately subjoins. And this is the special importance, saith S. Chrysostom. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but chose] as if the commending S. Paul's doctrine, in which only S. chrysostom puts the antithesis and opposition to the blaming it, did not only import but specially, import the intrusting him with a lesser Province whereas all the special importance of it is only this that Dr. H. hath a special faculty of his own in falsifiing, and making special fools his credulous Readers to think all his forgeries gospel because he gives them special fine words, and assures them he hath a special desire to speak 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 endeavors to prove that these Apostles had several Provinces at Rome and Antioch; his Disarmer showed to the eye of the Reader that he had not one word expressing that position in any testimony alleged 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 express in his Reply and Answ. and, that we may see how strongly warranted his Tenet is, he brings here one so home and express that I confess some difficulty to Answer it; I mean the latter part of the long testimony lately recited as from S. chrysostom; and to set the things the more unquestionably for the future, they made this agreement with Paul and Barnabas, that, when soever they should come to the same City mixed of jews and Gentiles, Peter and john should betake them selves to the jewish and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile part of it. This is expressly now and full for Dr. H's tenet, not a testimony-bolt shot at rovers, or only touching the question obscurely, as was his custom in other places. But, alas, how is the good testimony spoileed and the alledger of it exposed to shame; not a word of all this long rabble so nearly importing the Question is found in the Author, but only voluntarily added by the good Dr. and fathered upon S. Chrysostom. no news, God knows, is there in the place itself either of setting things unquestionably for the future, nor of making an agreement, nor of, meeting in the same City, nor of jews and Gentiles mixed, nor of betaking themselves to the jewish or Gentile part of it, nor of any thing to that purpose; but only 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 amiss to make some brief animadversions upon it, that Dr. H's art in this and many other places may be better discovered, and the reader more perfectly undeceiued in the opinion of his sincerity.  
Note first then, ere he introduces the testimony he speaks of the direct point in controversy to wit, of entrusting of Provinces by Apostolical 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 special importance, saith S chrysostom, of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which, though absolutely false as hath been shown, yet, those pretty confident words of special importance, and the fathering it upon S. chrysostom make it seem authentically true and pass down glibly with a cursory Reader.  
Note fourthly, how he lays 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 discovered.  
Note fifthly, how having alleged 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 smoothly 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 he.)  
Note sixthly, that, as he ushered in his former falsification with the confident phrase of special importance, so here, that the Reader may not distrust nor doubt but that all is real, he ushers in his latter with un questionably; to set all (saith he) unquestionably for the future. What Reader now could be so discourteous as to suspect Dr. H's integrity where as he assures him with such doubt-setling expressions as these are, and makes his boldfaced testimonies wear nothing but special 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 so much before, was shamed out of countenance by Schism Disarmed, now he adds what words he pleases in a smooth even tenor 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 so disparate that no, Id est, would possibly conjoin 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 less discoverable.  
And so 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 Disarmed had ruined. All which have been shown so impertinent to the point they are brought to prove that he might with better reason have alleged 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 itself so nicely in a Parenthesis that it scap't my observation. But having found it we shall not neglect to pull it out of its 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. 'Tis 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 preached in divers nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the jews that were of the dispersion) the meaning is evident, etc. Thus he, whereas first there is not a word to that purpose found in the place alleged. Secondly, how can only his preaching to the jews of the dispersion countenance that they were his Province, since 'tis known and granted that he preached also to the jews in judea; so that if from such a manner of expression it may be inferred 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 says he preached to the jews of the dispersion: which signifies thus much; Just as I say S. Peter was Apostle of the jews of the dispersion exclusively (in which word lies the whole question) so Eusebius says that he preached 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, expressed drily as is Dr. H's wily way, and the testimony touched at slightly gulls an ordinary Reader to his face and persuades 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 jews only 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, 'tis 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, etc. here ariseth (saith he) an obscure question; what if Peter found any Gentiles, did not he bring them to Christ's faith; or, if Paul found any jews, did not he move them to the baptis. of Christ, Then he proceeds to solve it, by saying, that one had principal mandatum, a principal charge over jews 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 jurisdiction (for certainly they did not intend to do what they had no right to do) in these words, In common verò hoc eos habuisse propositi, ut 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 baptised by Peter, and also that Christ was very often preached by Paul in the Synagogue of the jews. Where,  
Observe first, that the very question between Dr. H. and me is here moved by S. Hierom, to wit, concerning the exclusiveness or not exclusiveness of these Apostles jurisdictions; or, at least (for I imagine it impossible S. Hierom should even dream of such an absurd position) of their acting exclusively.  
Observe secondly that since their exclusiveness consisted only in their meeting in the same place, as Dr. H. holds, There and there only it is (saith he, Rep. p. 59 l. 10.) had S. Hierom been acquainted with any such matter, it had been impossible not to express it here; since the discourse itself necessarily directed him to it. For how could he Answer a question about their exclusiveness, without saying they had such an exclusiveness when they met, if it were true that they had none at all but only 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 do 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 only upon the principale mandatum, the principal charge to apply themselves thus severally, and expresses it not as an act of distinct jurisdiction but of a prudent aeconomy, that either side haberent quem sequerentur, might have whom to follow; to wit, in their neglecting or retaining the Mosaical 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 themselves intervened  
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 judaea he (to wit God) sent me to the Gentiles, and placed him in judaea; which being so, it is express 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 hindered not their intentions to preach to all Nations expressed by in common verò, etc. and the following, legimus enim, etc.  
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 exclusiveness so 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 happened before his imagined agreement, as an instance against their exclusiveness, 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 no 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 no purpose; being of a passage happening long before it.  
This Testimony of S. Hierom I at first intended only to let Mr. H. see that this learned father made the same argument as the Cath. Gent. did; but, finding it the most express 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 chimerical tenet of exclusive Provinces, and how perfectly for ours of the Apostles still-Vniversall jurisdictions; each expression here found being either emphatical 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 he styles it) at Jerusalem.  
NOthing is so weak but falsehood, which is weakness itself, can think it worth producing to strengthen itself 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 substantial proofs to underprop their weak Ivy. This is seen by pitiful experience in Dr. H. who is enamoured on every toy, though the passage or expression be perfectly indifferent, absolutely disparate, nay some times quite opposite to him, so his strong antipathy against the Pope, joined with his smooth-sly art can make a quodlibetical dish of it to please the palates of his partial friends or unattentive Readers. Each leaf of his hitherto hath given us several instances of this true charge yet none more evidently than 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 Jerusalem, where S. james was Bishop: his Disarmer asked him and now asks him again what he means by singular supremacy there? was ever the Pope's Authority dressed 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 universal, 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 universal and spreading itself to all places in the whole Christian world. All the singularity and particularity shown there at Jerusalem was of S. james being particular Bishop of that place; and then indeed by proving S. james such; he quite takes of S. Peter's pretention 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 honour, [singular supremacy] as an ambiguous word, and apt to make the vulgar Reader imagine 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 jealous of it, knowing it to be one of Dr H's best arts to couch himself in odd indifferent expressions which helped by some circumstances (little more than indifferent also) may make the Reader apt to take them in a sinister sense, 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 itself, 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 equal Or if he meant not that each was supreme there in respect of the other, than what needed he add singular at all? let him but grant us only 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 so powerfully that expression which we never challenged nor stood upon, nay not so much as heard of till he coined 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 he of Schism p. 73.) S. james his jurisdiction was not by Peter alone entrusted unto him, but by james and john together with Peter: so that the argument stands thus; S. Peter cannot be higher in Authority, unless he does all things alone by himself. Is not this excellent? But, what follows is superexcellent and transcendently rational; his Disarmer showed his consequence naught, because an Archbishop going to consecrate a Bishop uses to take two other Bishops with him, which yet argues not that the Archbishop hath any greater Authority than a Bishop: so that as it is inconsequent to say, an Arch bishop does not alone entrust a Bishop with a Bishopric, but takes two Bishops a long with him to do it, therefore he hath no higher Authority than the Bishops he takes with him; so, it is equally inconsequent to say, S. Peter did not alone entrust james with the Bishopric of Jerusalem but took Peter and john with him, therefore he had no higher Authority than Peter and john. This consequence absolutely denied by me and an instance given to show by parity the weakness 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 james and john. Did I say S. Peter was an Archbishop and the other two his suffragans? what means then this laying out my words in such a form? that he had higher Authority was mine and the Catholic Tenet which higher Authority I showed not invalidated by his taking other two with him by the parity of an Archbishops carriage in the like case, and hence denied the consequence: yet in despite of Logic and the commonest rules of disputing he is resolved his consequence shall hold till I who am the defendant and am answering his argument prove mine own tenet and turn to be Opponent, making it appear (as he candidly expresses it) that S. Peter was an Archbishop, and the other two his suffragans. The sum than is this Dr. H. argues thus S. Peter took other two with him to consecrate james, therefore he hath no higher Authority than 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 only 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 only, not to prove my Tenet or make it appear. Perhaps Mr. H. having got some credit for ordinary sleight pulpit sense, may still in the judgement of some prejudiced 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 University would be hist out of the schools, if he defended his argument no better than the Dr. hath proved his consequence.  
He adds a Testimony out of Clemens, which he says deserves to be considered (Answ. p. 42. 43.) and it shall have its full desert. 'Tis this, that Peter, james and john being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, honoured before the rest by our Lord did not contend for dignity, but those james the first Bishop of Jerusalem, which Testimony is very express that they all chose him, and did not wrangle in choosing 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 james and john also, and so no singular supremacy. The force than lies in the (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, honoured before the rest) and in its being spoken in the plural number in common: I ask then and put it to Dr. H's choice; does this word sound priority or preeminence in Authority and jurisdiction, or does it not, but some other priority, as of favour, gifts etc. If it does, than it makes these three Apostles superior in jurisdiction to the rest and puts the rest subject to them, which Dr. H. will (jam sure) by no means admit nay expressly denies in this very page. If it does not, than what does it concern our question, which is about jurisdictions for let the rest be never so much before S. Peter in all other regards, yet as long as they are not equalled to S. Peter in jurisdiction and Authority, still our Tenet is in tire to us and untuched. Testimonies therefore which can make against us must concern jurisdiction, and show an equality among the Apostles in that; of which since this place cannot be understood, as hath been shown, it cannot consequently pretend to touch us at all. Again admit the honouring above the rest; spoke in common of these three Apostles, signified any jurisdiction 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 express nothing to the contrary but easily permit it to be so without any violence offered to their sense; Cities are honoured more than Villages, yet it follows not from these words that all Cities are of equal honour with one another. So miserably weak is Dr. H's reason, which is only declamation pitch, that it cannot be imagined, unless 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 alleged, nor carry home to the meanest semblance or shadow of a conclusion.  
But to proceed; having proved gallantly from three being honoured before the rest an equality of that honour in all those three, and supposed against his own Tenet that this preference of honour means jurisdiction and Authority, and so that these three Apostles were equal in that respect, he adds, and as such they chose and ordained the brother of the Lord; which, sure, is not after the manner of an Archbishop and his suffragan Bishops, where you see the upshot of all expressed in his surefooted conclusion, which sure, etc. depends upon the (as such) and the (as equal 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 taught 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 only to descant and reflect glancingly upon his own more substantial, 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 choosing him, if they were all equal in digni●y? what so 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 equal Authority should do 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 peaceableness, humility, mutual 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 james and Cephas and john 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 no other note of their being equally dignified save only that these three are named together. Hath not this Dr. of Divinity a strange reach of reason, who can conclude men equal in Authority because he finds their names in the same place? so that, should he hap to find the King, Tom fool and john a Nokes named all together, presently his levelling logic concludes them all equally dignified. The like acuteness is shown in the second part which sounds to the same time, both being nonsense in Ela. They are all called pillars, ergo, they are all equal, cries the Dr. as if one pillar could not be higher than another. But he makes no 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 plural 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 logic for the levellers: If he observes that peasants, as well as Princes, agree in the common name of men, and are called so in the plural, presently he concludes that peasants and Princes are equally dignified the Lord Ma or of London and the Geffer Major of Grims●y are equal in Authority and dignity by the same reason, because they are both in the plural called Majors. Nor only this but Cities, Commonwealths rivers, horses, books noses, mountains, stars, and universally all things in the world must be levelled into an equality, because the common name in the plural agrees to all of each kind, by Dr H's parallel logic which concludes the Apostles equal because they are called pillars, nay even from their being named together. Is the answering such a pitiful Adversary worth the loss 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, unless his wilful and affected weaknesses be laid open. I might hope also for some ameandment from another, but I find him so long beaten to his slender-woven cobwebb declamation-stuffe, I despair 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 Disarmed of the same faults; to wit, of proving the Apostles equally foundation-stones, because they were all called so in the plural; that the Apostles were all equal because that common Appellation in the plural was given to all; that none had more power than another (that is all had equal power) because each sit upon a throne to judge, that is had power only; that the Spirit sat without distinction, that is equally upon each, because the Scripture says in common that it sat upon them; that all had the holy ghost equally (by the ploughman's 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 no 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 he calls them) and his manifold falsification of S. chrysostom, to prove james at Jerusalem clearly superior to S. Peter.  
AS for the point itself concerning S. james, I am reprehended for misunderstanding Dr. H. and that he endeavoured not to prove S. james his priority of dignity and Authority, but only 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. james was Bishop of Jerusalem, and the jurisdiction of that Metropolis? Hath not each Catholic Bishop the same now a days over his private Diocese, and yet remains subject to the head of God's Church notwithstanding? Again, if he intended not that S. james had greater Authority there, what meant his fiction of his having the principal place, and giving the sentence, that the Rescript is grounded upon his sentence, etc. Surely when one gives the sentence, and the others only propose, the former must be held to have greater power in that place and those circumstances than the latter. But [principal] with him sounds no priority at all, nor can he be held to any thing who hath got once the privilege to say and unsay again as he pleases. He was accused of making S. james at Jerusalem, superior to S. Peter, which he denies p. 43. blaming me for misunderstanding him, yet in the p. 44. ere the Echo of the former words were well out of the Reader's ears, he goes about to prove and infer in express words from testimonies that james 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 show (Answ. p. 44.) that he hath at least pretences of testimonies that S. james had the principal place, the first of which pretences is, that he is named before Peter, and unless this conclude our argument from S. Peter's being named first must be prejudiced. I Answer, our argument drawn thence for his principal place among the Apostles insists upon his constantly being named first, and not once only; which might happen without any great mystery 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 named or expressed to be the first of the Apostles.  
His second pretence of a Testimony, as he calls it, is from S. james his giving the sentence; and though their own translation rendered the words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] wherefore my sentence is, by this means making it only his judgement in the matters, yet Dr. H. tells us, he still believes it signifies the sentence. The first ground of this his belief is, because 'tis S. Chrysostom's observation that his speaking last was founded in his being Bishop of Jerusalem: what then? could not he be Bishop there and speak last both, without giving the sentence? were there no worthier persons present, or did the thing to be concluded only concern his see, or indeed did it concern it at all? the Rescript, the effect of this consult, being directed only to Gentiles, which were no ways subject to the Bishopric of Jerusalem. But let us see S. Chrysostom's testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was Bishop of the Church in Jerusalem 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 express (as this is (than they come of worst of all. Let him look into their own edition of S. chrysostom and Dannaeus his Notes upon them, printed at Eton, and he shall see what is become of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore he speaks last upon which only he builds; verba haec (saith he) 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 do they seem to be fitly placed: for, in regard he was a Bishop he ought in that respect to speak first not last. But 'tis no matter, Dr. H. can cast a figure of hysteron proteron, make first be last, and any corrupt piece of an Author become pure chrysostom and rare sense, so it do but be befriend him at a dead lift.  
His second worthy proof is that S. chrysostom says that james 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordains or decrees those things. As if the decree were not manifestly made by all present but by james only, and called there by S. chrysostom himself, p. 795. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common decree; yet, because he finds an expression of decreeing, common (as he well knows) to all that were present, but, (his present occasion not inviting him) not taken notice of by S. chrysostom in that place, immediately S. james is thence concluded the best man in the company, the giver of the sentence, or whatever else Dr. H. pleases. Any thing may be aswel inferred as that which he pretends. Again, I would ask Dr. H. why he leaves out the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the law, which were immediately joined 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 absoluteness of S. james 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 haughtiness 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; james represses himself and does not descent. He was entrusted with the principality) Bishopric) john says nothing here, the other Apostles say nothing, but keep silence and take it not ill; so 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 custom 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 evident by the place as taken in itself let us see now how Mr. H. works upon it.  
He had already proved from his late-mentioned unauthentick testimony that S. james had the principal place because he spoke last; then he names the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he englishes, good order, in speaking, set down (as he says) by S. chrysostom; Next, he leaves out all those words which might manifest what was meant in that place by good order, to wit that there was no haughtiness in that Congregation, that their Souls were free from vainglory which should have shown plainly that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or good order consisted only 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 no man stops his mouth or hinders him, lest we should apprehend that the good order consisted only in this that they did not interrupt one another in speaking, which apprehension would have spoileed the Drs good order of the principal man speaking last fourthly, to hinder the Reader from the same right apprehension, he omitts all the words following that which related to james, to wit john says 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 he pretends is meant there Fifthly, by picking out of the testimony these words, after Peter Paul speaks and james forbears, and interposes not, for he was entrusted with the (Bishopric or) principality, and there ending, he gains a rare semblance for his purpose that S. chrysostom made S. james for good orders sake reserve himself till the last, because he was the best man; whereas take the whole entire testimony concerning that matter) more than 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 sense which is the soul of it, the Interpreter acknowledgeth not the causal particle [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for] upon which he builds S. james his wariness not to speak till his turn the last place. Seventhly had Mr. H. been so 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, james flies not back or resists not, without recurring to the marginal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, interposes not, all colour had been wastht of from his sophisticated testimony, even as dressed up by himself. For, what coherence make these words in Dr. H's grounds, he resists not, for he was entrusted with the Bishopric, if the being a Bishop they gave him the principal place, and so made him more able to resist or descent. Add that the Interpreter to whom his own side defer much renders it non resilit, he flies not back, which makes the marginal word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (to which Dr. H. recurrs without giving us notice of it) less authentic. In a word the whole testimony manifests only that they demeaned themselves peaceably and quietly without contentions and proud interrupting one another; and the particular line, picked out by his sence-corrupting art, notes on the by, amongst other things which showed their humble and peaceable charity, that one of these namely S. james had a particular charge over the jewish Sect, whose cause it seemed to be to observe the Mosaical law and so 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 renders it, jacobus fert & non resilit, illi erat principatus concreditus, with comes to this sense that he suffers it quietly and flies not back from their fore determination, although the charge he had seemed to engage him rather to favour the jewish party. But Dr. H. by omitting all the words which could show the true import of the place, by taking a line only which could by additional arts give a gloss to another quite-disparate sense, by mangling that otherwise-something unfit 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 expressly setting down the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good order observed in their speaking] then, by putting the maimed and corrupted testimony down thus, After Peter Paul speaks and james forbears and interposes not, for he was entrusted with the Principality, and lastly, by shutting up close his testimony there, lest the vigour of it should take air by admitting in the following words; by all these numerous evasions, I say, he makes the honest and unwary Reader believe that S. chrysostom sets down their good order in speaking (as he renders it,) to consist in this that james having the principal 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 no order at all as Mr. H. takes order; but that he who had any thing to say might freely and quietly speak without fear of being proudly checked or contentiously interrupted by another.  
Lastly I would know with what face Mr. H. renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies only good order [good order in speaking] since 'tis plain from the testimony that S. john and the rest of the Apostles spoke 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 speak last.  
This manner of alleging Testimonies may be reckoned 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 slightly and in passing, as it were, at two or three words of it, which taken alone and introduced with a handsome boldness 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 Disarmed, 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, wilful mistakes and wily sleights of Dr. H's to maintain the same point.  
AFter this hysteron-proteron, testimony concerning james his first-last place, we have another from S. chrysostom thus put down by Mr. H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. for thus (speaking of S. james) 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 Topics, and hence Mr. H. infers James in this council clearly superior to S. Peter.  
This seems terrible; but, to render good for evil 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 Peter's presence. How this equal power of all the Apostles consists with S. Peter having no power save over one portion of the dispersed jews only, as Dr. H. affirmed of Schism p. 71. I will not now examine▪ with concerns us to observe in it is only this, that he produces not these testimonies to prove the greater power of any in this council, but only the principal places of james. This being clearly his meaning, (as it is also more particularly expressed 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 use to signify place, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principal, or both of them together principal place as that is contradistinguisht from greater power? How come then the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify principal 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 superior to S. Peter, is both expressly contradictory to himself, and to his whole scope and intention; which was to prove as he tells us not his greater power but principal place only But let us grant that Dr. H. hath forgot what he was about; and that in stead of proving the principal place only, he having light on an odd testimony which spoke expressly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power infers there-upon that james was clearly superior there to S. Peter, meaning in power; let all this I say be granted and pardoned, if S. james 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 plural) than I ask whither Dr. H. thinks in his conscience that these Apostles who had Authority to constitute james Bishop there had not Authority likewise to remove him, if they saw it convenient? if they had, than they had an Authority superior to S. james 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 fixed Bishops S. james being constituted Bishop in judea 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 be S. Paul's Province. Again we will pardon Dr. H. his affirmation that the Apostles distributed their universal great Province into several lesser ones. Those famous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet giving S. james 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, than I use my advantage and urge him; was S. james 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, than he went a breast with the Apostles in self Authority, and had his catachrestically-named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aswell as they; But, if he remained still subject, than his territory being amongst the jews, and S Peter being by Dr. H's exclusive place of Scripture named Apostle of the jews in the same tenor 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 jews 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 james was considered as a Bishop, and so had the principal 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 imagine a national council to be met there, ought not the Bishop of Rochester give place to his Metropolitan the Archbishop of Canterbury, and let him pronounce the sentence? yet D. H. here out of his ill will to the Pope's predecessor S. Peter, will let S. james do neither though he holds him to have been no Apostle. But 'tis sufficient with him that he is a Bishop in that place to infer him to be clearly superior to all there, to have the principal 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 be in Authority; if S. Peter be in company, the private Bishop shall be clearly superior to them all; whereas, had he been absent, S. james had neither been thus exalted, nor the other Apostles thus depresed 'twas S. Peter's being there which put all out of order.  
Lastly, what means his inference of his being clearly superior in that council? This is the most unlikely point of all the rest; this council (as hath been shown) concerned not S. james his particular jurisdiction, but the common good of the Church, of which the Apostles were overseers; nor did this in particular concern S. james, who (as Dr. H. here grants) was none of the Apostles. In a word, if he contend that they let him have the principal place out of a respectful and courteous deference upon another score, as he was our Lord's brother and very ancient, let him bring authentic testimonies that they did so, and we shall easily grant it. But what does courtesy concern power, or the right to a thing, or place. Thus we read that Pope Anicetus, gave S. Polycarp the preeminence even in his own Church, yet we think not that his civil condescension wronged his jurisdiction; though (I know) if Dr. H. could prove so much of S. james here, all were lost to S. Peter without hopes of recovery. But if he proves his principal place by right upon the account only of being Bishop there, 'tis infinitely weak, and inconsequent; reason absolutely disclaiming any such inference; and as for authority the very testimonies he brings to prove it are either expressly against him and contrary to his own grounds, or else unauthentick; or, lastly, nothing at all to his purpose, as hath been shown.  
His next testimony that S. james saith, with power I judge, makes neither for him nor against us: since we grant that each here had power, and used that power invoting or decreeing; so hath, and doth each member in Parliament, which yet consists well enough with their different degrees of power in thus voting, and decreeing; so that, though we read that one member did it, upon an occasion relating to him in particular, without excluding the rest, we cannot upon that negative argument either infer that he alone did so, or pronounced the Decree, unless his expression had something particular, not competent to the rest; As for example, had it been phrased thus. Let it be enacted, Be it decreed, etc. there had been some ground that he pronounced the sentence, but his words being only I judge, 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, 'tis impossible any reason unprejudiced can think any more deducible thence then that his particular sentence was expressed by those words.  
Thus much for the words, following Dr. H's explication of them. But to give S. chrysostom leave to explicate himself, let us hear what he says. In the same Homily and upon the same passage we find these words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he with good reason ordains those things to wit to abstain from things strangled, etc. 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 judge, that is from myself, not having heard it from the law. Where we have two things remarkable in this prudent carriage of S. james, whose circumstances (being Bishop, and Resident in Jerusalem) required on the one side that he should not disgust the jews 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. chrysostom 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 avoids the jews displeasure; but does not ordain them formally, because they were commanded by the law, so avoiding the wronging of Christianity, but of himself who as an Apostle had power to do such things: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I judge, that is, of myself (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 judge, that is, I say with power, is given by all reason to signify the same as the former explication now laid out at large, and of which this seems to be only a brief repetition. For first, why should we imagine that S. chrysostom, should give two disparate interpretations of the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in the self same circumstances? Next, were it not only a repetition of the former, why is he so short in this latter explication as to pass it over slightly 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 myself, 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 we look more narrowly into the place we shall find that neither Testimony is an explication of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies judging, 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 its 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 form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of myself; or, why it should have any emphatical relation or opposition to any other Authority save that of the law only. So that there is not the slenderest appearance of S. james his having the principal place, or giving the sentence, from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with power more than from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of myself. 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 than his as Bishop. But, as his ordinary custom 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 only touches them slightly with a grave carelessness and thinks the deed is done.  
What follows in his 12. paragraph craves only that the Readers would use their eyes to avoid 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 be 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. james 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. etc. Was, that in that place there was nothing particularising S. james, but only that then (to wit, after S. Peter, S. Paul, and Barnabas and S. james had spoken) It seemed good to the Apostles, and Elders with the whole Church, etc. Now if there be nothing in that Verse alleged, signifying that the Rescript was grounded upon S. james his sentence for which it was brought, then 'tis plain I neither misunderstand nor mistake. To avoid 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. faultiness 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 imagine the sentence was so his, as not to be the Councils; whereas indeed S. W. made him imagine no such thing, but only (as himself told me there) that S. james his particular sentence expressed 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. james his sentence, which was the thing he produced it for but to this point he says 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 he courteously counterfeits is a farther mistake and that the words [then seemed it good, etc.] mean a subsequent determination to the Dogma, or Decree, If so, I wonder who was in the fault or mistake? 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 lays the blame from himself, and on S. W. telling him he hath mistaken which when he hath done he concludes with a Gloria Patri, how well he hath qualified S. W. to consider whether Dr. H. or he be wiser or honester. But in case I had mistake in calling those words [then seemed it good, etc.] the Dogma, or Decree I at lest mistake with good Company; for good S. chrysostom was expressly 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. denies here to signify the Dogma, or Decree, but only a subsequent determination.  
Next he tells the Reader (par. 13.) that I would conclude in favour of S. Peter's Authority from his speaking first, etc. It had been more ingenuous to represent me in mine own language, I use not to build conclusions absolutely upon conjectural premises 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, etc. nor did I rely even for thus much upon only 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 judgement, in such a solemnly pronounced oration as did S. Peter. But Dr. H. omits that which I grounded on, to wit, [after such debate, etc.] which adds a circumstance much increasing the rather-probability of his greater Authority; and truly to a man not prepossessed with prejudice the Text itself is sufficiently favourable 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 unto them, etc. 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 itself 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 Gentiles by my mouth should hear the words of the Gospel. where we see that his preaching to the Gentiles was a thing already known to the Congregation, known long ago, 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 favouring that interpretation. The occasion was about the necessity or no necessity of circumcision v. 5. and more immediately their long disputing upon that matter. Next the action of preaching to the Gentiles is expressed 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 jews, and Gentiles, he comes to the point; Now therefore why tempt ye God, etc. where the word [therefore] making his former discourse have an influence upon this latter of not obliging to Circumcision, shows it to be merely a pertinent, and orderly exordium to confirm and give light to what followed, which this voluntary Interpreter of Scripture in despite of all the circumstances (as his custom is) will need's have to denote S. Peter's Apology or justification of himself for preaching to the Gentiles?  
Again, were S. Peter necessitated to justify 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 use to begin with their defence, and Apologise for their innocence in the first place! No strength of reason but Mr. H's could have defended itself so confidently with such a paper-buckler, or have thought cobwebs impenetrable. james must be first, because he spoke last, and S. Peter must speak first because he was to Apologise and give account of his actions. Whereas S. chrysostom 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 choir always begins to speak first. What can be more expressly destructive to Dr. H's tenet, and interpretation of this place, yet (it not belonging to me at this time to allege 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 chooses here for his best Patron, and in that very treatise which he built upon, as most express, for this his altogether-unwarrantable position. Nor consequently can it be imagined but that Dr. H. must needs see how averse S. chrysostom was from what he would make him profess, in case he ever looked into the very Author he quotes, and most relies on.   

Sect. 12.  
How weakly Dr. H. argues to prove S▪ Pawles Authority equal to S. Peter's. S. Chrysostom's judgement concerning S. Peter's Supremacy.  
I had granted that the conferring the honour 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 immediately from Christ concluded very well for that purpose, yet concluded nothing against us, who never held the contrary tenet. But, I denied absolutely that the dignity given was not inferior, subordinate, and in that sense 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 University 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 offered some proof for this; (to wit, that the power given was subordinate, or dependent on S. Peter) which he knows is most denied by the Protestants. A secure method of disputing? Let us put it into a parallel, and we shall see what a rare Logician this Dr. is. Put case then that himself were to maintain and prove that Logic were no Science but an Art, and should argue thus; The end of Logic is not Contemplation, but Action; therefore Logic is no Science. His adversary (as S. W. did) distinguishes his consequent; therefore 'tis no Speculative Science, I grant it; therefore 'tis no practical Science, I deny it, I marry replies Dr. H. but you must prove one part of your own distinction, and manifest that Logic is a practical Science, nay more tells him gravely (as he tells me here) that, unless he can make it appear, he cannot say it is such with any sobriety, after which learned carriage, I suppose the Reader who hath only studied Logic a fortnight will imagine that the whole schools fall a hissing at my notable Adversary, who speaks nonsense with such gravity and sobriety; and acquit his Antagonist from any note of insobriety, save only his indiscretion to think the answering such an adversary worth his pains.  
Secondly he answers, that unless the same Christ that gave him this power immediately appear to have subjected it to S. Peter, as clearly, as that he gave him the power, which 'tis certain appears not, this cannot be said 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 appears 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 voice of the Catholic Church, infallible, because ever built upon the testification of a world of immediate fathers and Pastors, equally ascertained all who deserted not that Rule for that point, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Simon the first signified not an onely-complementary but Efficacious Primacy 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 unity 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 voice 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 itself, out of the nature of the thing, of more eminent and immediate necessity for salvation then the former; but my meaning only is that the testification, and recommendation of it, as coming from Christ is equal 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, than I set an Anabaptist upon his back, armed with Dr. H's own words, and let them scuffle for it. Unless the same Christ (says the Anabaptist) appear as clearly from Scripture to have commanded the Apostles to baptise little children which yet believe not, as to have sent them to baptise believers (which 'tis certain appears not) it cannot be said with any sobriety that an Infant ought to be baptised. Thus Mr. H. trips up his own heels when he thought to kick at S. Peter, and the Anabaptist gets the upper hand. Or if Dr. H. runs to Tradition for the certainty of one point, and denies its certainty for another, than he is to be asked 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 Catholics differ from them? and also S. W. must demand by what securer Rule he guides himself when he affirms it hath erred in some, and not in other points, and why it may not perhaps err in all if it can err in any.  
But why must I be accused of want of sobriety, for distinguishing without making the parts of my distinction appear, and yet Dr. H. who is the Opponent, pass for a sober man though he says what he pleases at random, nay more, places in his confident self affirmations the sum of his whole Defence. He tells us here we must make it appear that this power was subjected to S. Peter; but himself makes it not appear we do not, by any other argument than this, that he assures the Reader within a parenthesis, that 'tis certain it appears not, what ill luck it was that S. W. had not the forecast to say 'tis certain, too for then he had saved his sobriety, and all had been well.  
Thirdly, conscious to himself that all hitherto was evasion, he would seem at length for fashion's sake, as it were, to touch the point; but seems only, after his accustomed sleight manner, in these words. Thirdly the place Gal. 1. 17. belongs expressly to the power after it was giv●n, and yet then he depended not on him. Attend Reader here is a dreadful 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, expressly too, (as he tells thee) he should not be larger in it citing those express words, and then making invincible arguments from them. To lose his advantage in such circumstances, only relating hastily the place, then touching it slightly, and not prosecuting it home, nor indeed at all, but saying only something there upon, sounds a betraying of his cause, and some preposterous favour 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 expressly to the power after it was given: the other that yet than he depended not on him. The first is pretended from the Text, and expressly 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 examined. Thirdly, please to take notice that the Verse Gal. 1. 17. which he brings to testify his tenet expressly, but, by omitting it slubberingly, bids it say nothing, is this, as I find it in their own translation. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me, but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. And this is all: where we hear no news of any power at all, much less expressly belonging to power; nay more, expressly to the power after it was given, as Mr. H. promised us. Fourthly grant yet all this, that it belonged expressly 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 inferior degree to a superior, which is the whole question between us? Nothing is said here but only that S. Paul preached in Arabia, etc. ere he went to the Apostles before him. The place there named by him, taken in itself, without relation to the other Verses, expresses nothing of power at all, but only that S. Paul went to other places ere he went up to Jerusalem; and, taken with other adjoining Verses, only intimates this, that S. Paul, having commission immediately 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 less, equal, or greater than S. Peter's nothing is found there at all, much less doth the 17. Verse itself speak of power, still less doth it expressly belong to it; lest of all to power after it was given, as imdependent on S. Peter, as Mr. H. brags.  
To make this yet plainer, the Reader may please to advert that there is no Catholic in the world but holds, that, if our Saviour immediately command a thing he may be obeyed without ask counsel, or leave of any Superior, nay even against their contrary command, or prohibition. Next, that our Saviour not only 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 equal, 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, preached the Gospel, without ask leave, or receiving approbation from the Apostles. Were it not, now a worthy inference to parallel Dr. H's and conclude that therefore the Disciples were of equal Authority with the Apostles. But Dr. H. is so wary that he speaks his nonsense, slightly, 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 natural to his whole strain of writing.  
From Dr. H's reason, and Scripture testimonies we come to fathers to prove that the power given was not inferior to, or dependent on S. Peter's. He appeals to S. chrysostom for this point, affirming (as he lays it out) of S. Paul distinctly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not needing Peter nor his voice, The explication of this place is already given here in the paragraph foregoing, to which add in particular, that if by voice he means Commission, and order to preach; 'tis clear he needed it not, having received it immediately 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 we see not, and Dr. H. pretends here to prove it by no other argument then only by telling us within a parenthesis that he supposes it. Both the former interpretations than we grant each of them fits the words very well, whereas his of equality of power is impossible to be evinced from this testimony, and inconsistent even with Dr. H's grounds, as shall be shown.  
It follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but being equally honoured▪ with him; to which the father adds in a parenthesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I will say no more. Upon 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. chrysostom intimated by those words, to wit, that he could have said more with truth, but repressed himself as not willing out of reverence to those Apostles to make comparisons of inequality between them; which manifests plainly that S. chrysostom in that place speaks not of power at all, or equality in that respect; since neither was it ever heard of that S. chrysostom, or any else, 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 than he; hath at once contradicted his own grounds, and quite disannulled his own best testimony; rendering it impossible to relate to power, or Authority, for which he produced it, unless the opinion of the whole world, or (which is firmer and more inviolable) Dr. H's. own word's be a mistake, asserting that no Apostle had greater power then S. Peter.  
As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equal honour of those two Apostles it hath already been shown formerly from the father's words to signify equal honour for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same efficacity of preaching; and, in this place, both it, and the not needing S. Peter's voice, relate only to the sufficiency of S. Paul's knowledge making S. Peter's instructions needles: as appears by the words a little after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. not as if S. Paul were to learn any thing of S. Peter, etc. And thus indeed the possibility of S. Chrysostom's saying more of S. Paul, or that he was more honoured, and higher than S. Peter may have good sense; many holding that S. Paul was higher in learning, and the greater Divine. They must be therefore testimonies expressing equality in power of Government which can conclude any thing against our tenet concerning his power; for, in other things 'tis 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 expressed. 2. Cor. c. 11. Again, this very Verse which Dr. H. would have relate to power after it was given and its independence on S. Peter, S. Ambrose whose judgement I shallever prefer before Mr. H's interprets in the same sense as we take it, to wit, of independence in learning only; explicating S. Paul's words thus, non fuisse (dicit) necessitatem electum se a Deo pergendi ad praedecessores suos Apostolos ut aliquid fortè disceret ab illis quia Deus ei revelavit 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. chrysostom 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 friends 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 press here the high titular expressions he gives S. Peter, (Pan●g. in Pet. & Paul) how justly 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, etc. 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 Universality. But,  
My first place (which I rather make choice of because it relates to S. james 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 Saviour's extraordinary affection and familiarity towards S. Peter, he immediately subjoins this interrogatory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; If this be so how then came james to have the Episcopal seat of Jerusalem? he solves it himself thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he ordained him (S. Peter) not Master of that seat, but of the whole world. Here we see the vast difference between S. james and S. Peter's jurisdictions; one being Master of that private seat at Jerusalem; the other, Master of the whole world; whence follows evidently that neither S. Peter's jurisdiction is limited by any other bounds then the world itself is, and that he had jurisdiction also at Jerusalem itself, not after the nature of the particular Bishop there, but of an universal Governor or Master of the world; unless perhaps Mr. H will allege that Jerusalem is no part of the world; for then indeed I shall not know how to reply. Neither let him, as his custom 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 jurisdiction: for he must know that that is the proper signification of the word as it is found here which the circumstances accompanying it determine 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. james in order to Jerusalem; it being expressed but once, and in construction, referred to both. Since then, as applied to S. james it signifies his being Bishop of Jerusalem, and so expresses directly jurisdiction, and power of Government, it is against all reason to say it can possibly signify another thing as applied to S. Peter. According to this testimony then S. Peter was universal Bishop of the Church, and of an illimited jurisdiction. 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 sense itself putt the opposition between S. Peter's being such over the world, as S. james was over Jerusalem, which concerns commanding power, and jurisdiction.  
My second place is feched 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 business with Authority as having them all delivered into his hand. What can this signify, but that he as first, and as a supreme Governor 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 profess I cannot in Dr. H's behalf imagine; and, am persuaded himself will confess it (after perusal 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 find another more express for this, or any other point) is taken from the same place, and spoken upon the same occasion the election of some one to be 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 favour. What can be more express and full? The thing to be performed was an Act of the highest jurisdiction 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 expressed dubiously by the father, but as a thing certain and beyond all question, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yes altogether, absolutely, or without doubt. Nor have we here any divers Lections to diminish the Authority of the words which the Dr. makes a pitiful and little prevailing use of, in his lisping testimonies; nor is it a word, or two picked 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 be 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 Governor. Nor do we pretend to any higher strain of jurisdiction in S. Peter than that he could elect a new Apostle by his own power which this father not only grants, but strenuously assertes; nor! in our parallel tenet of the Pope's Authority, can we attribute to him any particular act, more supreme, or more savouring of highest Authority, than to constitute Bishops and Patriarches in the Church by himself, and of his own particular power. Nor, lastly, was this testimony peep't out for in strange places but offered me by the same Author whom Dr. H. most relies on, and in the same Treatise which he most frequently citys. judge then, Reader, whether it be 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 alleges imperfectly, mangles, corrupts, and falsifies this father's words to gain some show of his consent to his paradoxical point of faith; nay, makes him, by such leger de main sleights, his chiefest Patron to defend it, as hath been laid open, and discovered particularly heretofore though he could not but know that no writer extant could be more expressly against it then is this holy and learned father S. chrysostom.   

Sect. 13.  
Dr. H's success 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 no 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. where he cries certainly, surely, irrefragably, unquestionably, expressly, distinctly, accordingly, etc. which are the nerves of his discourse, than if he had said nothing at all, would not budge into assent notwithstanding his so confident assurance to warrant him; and as for Gal. 2 11. by which he pretended to make it appear, he replied Schism Disarm. p. 62. that S. Cyprian, and S. Austin thought otherwise, who interpreted S. Peter's bearing it patiently not as an argument of his less or equal Authority, but of his greatest humility; that being higher in dignity he should suffer so mildly the reprehensions of an inferior. The place alleged from those fathers was this: Quem quamuis primum Dominus elegerit, & super eum aedificaverit Ecclesiam suam, tamen cum secum Paulus disceptavit, non vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se Primatum tenere & obtemperari à novellu & posteris sibi potius opportere; nec despexit Paulum quòd Ecclesi●e prius 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 himself 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 counsel 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 belonged to me who was answering his book, and showing his allegations unable to conclude, to object testimonies also myself, and so be Opponent and defendant both; but as it was not my task, so neither do I esteem it so rare a business to transcribe out of books as needlessly to put myself 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 sense this holy fathers speaks, any more than of Christ's building his Church on him, and that he gave me a testimony even now from S. Ambrose which expressly avouched it I remember indeed such a Testimony Answ. 39 in the Margin, but I remember withal that he brought it not, nay would not let it signify S. Peter's Primacy in any sense over the whole Church, but over the jews only as appears by the fourlast lines of the same page 39 how ever we thank him for granting here that he gaves us a testimony from S. Ambrose, which expressly avoved S. Peter's Primacy in any sense over the Church, so he will promise us, not to repent himself, and recall his grant, which he pretends to have so expressly avouched there. But alas! what faith is to be given, to the most formal bargain made with such Copes-masters of testimonies? he had scarce writ eight lines after this professed express 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 jews, though the place itself in reference to S. Peter says only 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 only denies (as he says) that this Primacy gave him any power over S. Paul, and that I will remember he had reason to deny it from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal honour given S. Paul by chrysostom and Theophylact. I remember indeed the words, but have quite forgot that he had any reason to deduce from those words equality of honour sprung from Government or power of command, having shown from those father's explicating themselves that it is impossible the words can bear 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 be obeyed, etc.] Dr. H. discant's with this gloss, 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 justified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him. Thus he: so that the difference between Dr. H. and me in explicating this place stands thus; that he makes those words non vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assump sit to signify that S. Peter's praise worthiness expressed consisted in his not challenging what did not truly belong to him; whereas, I make it consist in his not challenging 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 only in an insolent and proud manner, well expressed 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 sense 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 haughtiness to have done it; since then the fathers intent 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 tiptoes (as we may say) yet his goodness so moderated his height that he was content with mildness to bear an inferiour's reprehensions; in which great virtue is shown, and, which being put, those fathers suppose that truly he was Superior.  
Secondly, unless this be the meaning of that place, we have quite lost the adversative sense which yet is unavoidable; for what sense is this, Though our Lord chose him to be the first, yet he did not challenge to himself more than belongs to him; or what special commendation do these words import; Though King james, was King of England yet he did not challenge, or assume to himself to be Emperor of Germany? sure it must be an envy 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 vindicavit 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 be 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 sense is granted S. Peter from this place: wherefore the redditive part of the testimony; yet he challenged not any thing, etc. so as to say, he had the Primacy, must be granted to be true also, or rather it is the self same. Neither is it possible that any man not totally possessed by prejudice can imagine any other, but that in these words. Though our Lord chose him to be the first, yet he said not, or alleged not that he had the Primacy, or was the first, the latter part should be false unless the former were so too.  
Firfthly, this being so, the following words in the redditive part of the testimony and ought rather to be obeyed by la●er Apostles, etc. must necessarily be true too, since they follow in the same tenor of redditive sense to the adversative, and are joined 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 persecutor of the Church, make it yet more evident; since he might with truth have said so, but of his goodness 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 persecutor are true also, upon what grounds can this Adversary of S Peter's imagine that the middle words importing his rather right to S. Paul's obedience which run on in the same even tenor 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 he had claimed any obedience from Paul by this Primacy he could not have justified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him; nay making this the sum of his answer to that place.  
Lastly the concluding words, [but admitted the counsel of truth] expressing the result of the whole business, show that i● plainly imports an Encomium of S. Peter's candour; that when the thing objected against him was true, he maintained not his own saying by Authority, but made his heygth of dignity, expressed there to be most eminent, stoop to the sincere acceptation of truth; which in a Superior and Governor is a most laudable carriage, and an unparalleled commendation. And thus Dr. H. comes of in answering S. W. first testimony; which being pressed speaks more against him than was at first intended, being only brought to show that these father's thought that manner of carriage between S. Peter and S. Paul expressed Gal. 11. rather argued S. Peter's greater humility than his lesser, or equal 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 Pope's Authority in that Apostles, even from domestic testimonies also: His own canon law approved publicly by himself as legitimate shall secretly by Dr. H's inspiration play the Traitor, and under mine now in these latter days the said Authority which till now every one took it to confirm. A strange attempt, if Mr. H's strength were equal 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 sacerdotal order began from Peter and so goes on in other expressions of that strain so far from prejudicial that they are very favourable; and as for these first words, if we look into the Epistle itself, it makes S. Peter the same in order to Christian Hierarchy, as Aaron was to the Leviticall, which we account no small honour. He adds (saith Dr. H.) that the Apostles, ipsum Principem eorum esse voluerunt, would have him to be their Prince; that is, consented he should be such; To which words Dr. H. subjoins 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 days, 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 we could have told him there was none in those days for him to hear but only either Christ or his Apostles and Disciples; neither can we doubt of his immediate conversation with them, who was (as the same Epistle expresses) ordained by S. Peter himself.  
These preambulatory expressions favouring so much our cause would make one think that the same Author could not be so forgetful, as to undo utterly the same Authority in the self same Epistle, nay in the next line, after he had called S. Peter, Prince of the Apostles; nor that Anacletus was such a Courtier as to speak those former kind words only for compliment 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 favourable 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 kicked it down with her foot) on the other side, as Mr. H. tells us, with equal clearness 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 slighting custom is) but puts them only down and then triumphs upon them, as if they could not possibly bear any other interpretation. Whereas, I make account every good Catholic 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, etc. in like consortship honour, and power, does not infer that they received parem honorem & potestatem equal 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 universal jurisdiction all over the world, grants likewise that each precisely under the notion of Apostle, that is, of one sent to preach Christ's faith, had a like consortship of honour and power; each of them being dignifyed with an unlimited Apostleship, and jurisdiction or power to preach; but, speaking of the Apostolical College as a community and so requiring order of Government, we 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 joined with acceperunt, then with pari; for than they should rather have been put after it, paricum eodem, etc. and so 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 Apostolical mission, euntes in universum mundum praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae. Going into the whole world preach the Gospel 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 himself in the same Epistle shall certify 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 Ecclesiastical 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 Apostolical seat or the Pope's in these words. Primates tamen (ut praefixum est) & tunc, & nunc habere iussae sunt, ad quos post sedem Apostol cam summa negotia conveniant, yet the Cities are ordered to have their Primates, to whom the chief busienesses (after the Apostolical 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 judgements of the highest matters be most, justly decided by them, the Authority of the Apostolical seat remaining unprejudiced. By these two places we may take an estimate of Dr. H. solidness, and sincerity, who catches at the shadow of a word, or two, pari consortio, in like consortship, so waxen natured that they are easily capable of a divers shaped 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 no testimony imaginable, more expressly for us, or more prejudiciable to him then the said Epistle if we look after the meaning of the Author in the entire import of it, and not what the many-senced or rather indeed the no fenced Dictionary interpretation of two single words give them a possibility to signify. Neither let Mr. H. think to excuse himself that he argues ad hominem in alleging these words, and so it imports not his cause at all what the Epistle itself▪ says, since he builds not upon it himself, nor allows its Authority; for still, as long as 'tis shown that he imposes upon that Epistle and its Author a sense which he knew they never intended he can never avoid the note of insincerity; and by how much the thing itself is more unlikely, that the Authority we allege for us should be clearly against us (as he says) or the fell same Epistle contradict itself; by so much 'tis a far more shameful rashness, and an affected precipitation in him to pretend it, and object it, unless upon most evident and unavoidable grounds.   

Sect. 14.  
Dr. H's trick to evade bringing some Testimony to confirm his own, We know. His two-edged argument to conclu●e against S. Peter's supermacy both from exclusiveness and not exclusiveness of jurisdiction.  
IN the beginning of his fifth Section Dr. H. who was so rarely skilful in the art of memory as to contradict himself near a dozen times in one point (as hath been shown, Part. 2. Sect. 4.) is now on a sudden become Master of it, and undertakes to teach'it S. W. whose memory (alas as he says 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 descried; nay moreover, this modest man who falsifies, or corrupts every thing he medles with, is angry with me that I do not blush. Expect (Reader) some great advantage gained against me which can move this Preacher of patience to this passion, who in the beginning of his book so like a saint professed his readiness to turn the other cheak to him who should strike him on the right.  
To avoid mistakes on my part, and cavils on mine Adversaries I shall put down both our words, and appeal to the Readers eyes His were these of Schism p. 74 Thus we know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted the jews and S. Paul the Gentiles. And what it was which Dr. H. (in the plural number [We] as became his Authority,) knew to be thus, he expressed in the immediately foregoing words, to wit, that whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same City, the one constantly applied himself to the jews, received Disciples of such, form 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 that (Reader) which Dr. H. knew to have b●en thus at Antioch; This is also the place Reply p. 57 when all else failed him, he stood to as a sufficient expression of his exclusive tenet of those Apostles jurisdictions.  
Now my words Schism Disarm p. 62. upon his [Thus we knew it was at Antioch, &c] were these. That his first testimony was his own knowledge Thus we know, etc. but that he put down no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one, of his [we know] which yet had been requisite, that we might have known it too. And this was all. What railing words the Dr. finds here which should make him complain so heinously, I know not, unless it were that I called the testimony of his own knowledge, weak; and indeed if this be railing, despair of learning more courtesy 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: We know, yet afterwards set down two testimonies of that, of which I lately, denied any. If he means such things as he produced for testimonies, I set down indeed the very next Section not only two, but ten of them: But, if he means such testimonies as I expressed myself to deny there, that is, such as did confirm his own Thus we know I am so far from blushing at it, that I still make him this bold proffer, that, if amongst all the following testimonies there be found any one word confirming his own Thus we know, and what it relates to, that is, making S. Peter's Authority exclusive to the jews, and S. Paul's to the Gentiles when they met at the same City but what himself adds of his own head I will yield him the whole controversy. Nor let him tell me what he fancies to be deduced thence, but what the testimonies themselves express; the deductions are his, the words only are the testimonies: let him show me any one exclusive word in any one testimony, and I profess before all the world that I will not only pardon him the impertinency of the rest, but alsoe grant him all. judge 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 challenge him that he had never a testimony to confirm his own: We know; and then, seeing 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 blamed 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 less exclusion of Authority and jurisdiction. Dr. H. answers here; Peter's singular jurisdiction and clearly joined Paul socially with him. It is impossible to get a positive word of sense from this man, first, he will never willingly use the common words which express the question between us, as chief in Authority amongst the Apostles, their Head, Prince, etc. but, as before he used the ambiguous phrase of S. Peter's having no singular supremacy at Jerusalem, so now he recurr's to singular jurisdiction at Antioch; which being doublesenced if we 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 quodlibetical reasoner argues: his whole intent was to conclude against S. Peter's Authority in question from his being exclusively limited to the jews when he met with S. Paul in the same City; and now here, though he should grant their preaching in the same city to have been promiscuous, and indifferent both to jews and Gentiles, yet he says 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 fits his concluding faculty. Dull Aristotle! Dull Schools, and Universities 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 preached promiscuously to the Antiochians, therefore S. Peter had manifestly no higher Authority then S. Paul. Good: did not Paul and Titus do the same in other places, were they therefore equal in Authority? Fourthly observe these words, that their promiscuous preaching clearly joined Paul socially, with him. Here again we must give Dr. H. leave to talk impertinently, and be content not to understand him; for if he means that he was socially joined with S. Peter, as his fellow-Apostle, or fellow-labourer, who either doubts it or imagines that it prejudices us: but, if he means that he was equal in Authority what force of reason can make these two so remote ends meet in a Conclusion: he was his fellow-preacher, or preached with him, therefore he was equal in Authority with him; as if the community of things under one notion, could not stand with their inequality under another; or as if we were not all fellow Christians, yet one notwithstanding of greater dignity and Authority then another.  
In answer to his dumb testimonies which affirmed only that S. Peter and S. Paul taught the Antiochians, and founded the Church, there, I replied Shism Disar. p. 63. that this might have been done by the promiscuous endeavours of those Apostles. Dr. H. undertakes here p. 48. to remove this might be, that is to show it impossible that they promiscuously taught the jews and Gentiles at Antioch. His first argument is drawn from the Inscription of the Rescript, which was directed to the Gentiles, separately from the jews, that they should abstain from things strangled, etc. 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 jews; ergo S. Peter and S. Paul did not preach promiscuously both to jews and Gentiles in Antioch; what unseen mysterious wires there are which make this Antecedent and Consequent hang together is beyond my guess, and proper to Revelation: for the words in which he puts most force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the brethren which are of the Gentiles express only that there were some Brethren at An●ioch Gentiles besides some others of another Sect, but they express 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 jurisdiction over the Gentiles, since the Rescript was sent to them as well in the name of S. Peter (whom he will have only over the jews 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 we must imagine he omitts and chooses 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 he says, Seorsim, etc. the Churches which were of the jews 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 be made much of by Dr. H. for it is borrowed from the Arch-heretick Pelagius, and falsely imposed upon S. Hierome, as hath been shown largely heretofore Sect. 7. As for the argument he makes from it we shall do it the right to put it into form also, which done, it stands thus. The Churches of jews and Gentiles were held a part, therefore S. Peter, and S. Paul could not impossibly preach both to jews and Gentiles, Thus Dr. H. undertakes to remove my might be and show 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 terms. What further reply may by needful to these words of the Arch heretic Pelagius upon another score is already given when we 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 jews 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. we read of S. Peter and the jewish Proselytes, Gal. 2. 11. that they withdrew from all Communion, and society with the Gentile Christians, upon which S. Paul reproved him publicly, &c His Disarmer challenged him to have abused S. Peter, and his jewish Proselytes, and the sacred Scripture too, alleging that in the Text cited by him, as the place where we read it, there is no such word to be read as the large-senced 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 trivial considerations of shame, and dishonour should either have shown that the solely important word All was in the place which he cited expressly for it, and affirmed it was read there; or else confess candidly and ingenuously that he wronged, or at least was mistaken in the place he alleged; 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 carelessness; or else grows angry, & would persuade his Adversary to blush when'tis his own turn. He never goes about to show us 'tis read there, where he promised 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 evasion as weak & unwarrantable as the clearing his falsification had been impossible. His evasion comes to this, that since S. Peter abstained from the Gentile diet lest he should seem to offend against the jewish law, therefore since it was equally against the jewish 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 jewish law to converse with a Gentile he proves first from the Text, the jews have no dealing with the Samaritans, and from the Disciples marveling 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 Schismatics and Heretics from it, whose conversation by consequence they deemed more contagious than that of pure heathens; who, agreeing in no common principles or point with true believers, were therefore less likely to deceive them with false glosses.  
Ibid. His second assertion superadds to the former that the preaching to a Gentile was to the jews as unlawful 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 unlawful for a jew to do so; as is expressed v. 28. all Communion is interdicted the jewish & Gentile Church at Antioch, hence it is against the judaical law to converse with them, or preach to Gentiles. hence lastly the Catholic Gentlemanis unhappy continually in his objections.  
See here, Reader, a pattern 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 expressly 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 blurred paper to affirm that the jews were forbidden by the judaical law to converse 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 itself, Levit. 22. 10. There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing, a sojourner of the Priests, 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 jews. And in the 12. v. a much more difficult point is supposed, tow it, of a Priest's daughter married to a stranger. Again, 1. Kings 8. 41. 42. 43 Solomon prays that all the people of the earth may hear God's name, and that God would hear that prayer of the stranger who cometh out of a far country to the house at Jerusalem. So far were they from abhorring to convert & converse with Gentiles as they express 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 josvah were designed to do it, Rachab the harlot, & her father's house were saved & lived with the jews after they had taken jericho, particularly it is expressed by the sacred writer that she or herposteritie lived in Israël even to the time he writ josh. 6. 25. Elias conversed nay lived in the house with the widow of Sarepta, Elizeus with Naaman the Syrian; David lived with Achis; Solomon conversed & made a league with Hiram, 1. Kings. 5. 12. the Maccabees 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 jews conversed with Gentiles in captivity, neither do we hear of any expression of abhominating their civil society 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, go about Sea & land to make one Proselyte, which was impossible to be done without both conversation & preaching. Innumerable other examples might be gathered 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 evading assertion of his built upon one wilfully misunderstood place, was most evident in Scripture.  
Nor was only Moses his law & the whole stream of Scripture-instances opposite to this new tenet of his, but the position itself is absolutely implicatory, supposing the lawfulness to make a Proselyte; for, how could a Gentile possibly come to be of the jewish law without the conversation & instruction of some jew. In a word, David commanded together the strangers in the land of Israël, 1. Chron. 22. 2. and, they were found, when Solomon 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 appears by v. 18. that is there were one hundred fifty three thousand, six hundred strangers, besides male-infants, boys, 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 judge no less to amount to three hundred thousand. Now, is it possible that any but a mad man should imagine 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 country because he would not become of the jewish law; can any imagine there were none amongst this numerous multitude as yet a cathecumenus (as we may say) and learning his duty when he should become a jew? 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 jews very frequently both conversing with them & instructing them; or lastly, that (considering how strict the jews were in observing the law of Moses) this so frequent-conversation & instruction equally unlawful 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 unlawful custom, no banishing the Gentiles from amongst them; but rather making their country a rendezvous 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 imagined that Moses his law was publicly and frequently, & yet calmly & quietly broken; and that, in David's reign & the beginning of Salomon's, the purest times of the jewish Church, rather than a Protestant Minister, one Dr. H. should fail in vindicating his unparallelled absurdity, that the jews at Antioch had no Communion at all, no not even civil conversation with the Gentiles their fellow-Christians, because they were forbidden to do it by the judaical 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 jews should either civilly converse with or charitably endeavour to convert a Gentile. Now, put the case it had been thus forbidden, & thus unlawful, what likelihood was there that the apprehension of that unlawfulness should still remain at the time we speak of, so as to make the jewish 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 occasional relating it, of which there was great necessity by reason of the scandal which that novelty caused at first, as also by its 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 imagined but that this relation of his vision was spread far & near amongst the jews with whom he conversed, specially Dr. H. granting that when S. Paul met him not he preached both to jews & Gentiles, he was obliged to publish the said vision as a warrantable excuse of his and the other Apostles frequently preaching to the latter. Again, we read that those that were scandalised at S. Peter's conversing with the Gentiles Act. 11. after he had cleared himself, & related his vision expressed their full satisfaction by holding their peace & glorifying God for it v. 18. Now than I argue, either the jews at Antioch were in like disposition of mind to be scandalised, seeing S. Peter converse with Gentiles there, Gal. 2. or not: if not, then there is no ground why Mr. H. should think that the jewish Christians there held it unlawful to converse with the Gentile ones; if they held it unlawful, than I ask again upon what grounds 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 jews at Jerusalem Act. 11. Or why he should conceit that the jews at Antioch were so incomparably more unreasonable than the others, that whereas those at Jerusalem, though at first so hit as to contend with S. Peter about it Act. 11 v. 2. yet remained so perfectly satisfied by S. Peter's discourse as to glorify 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 only Governor, S. Peter.  
Moreover, ere this contest happened at Antioch about eating the Gentile diet, it was no new matter, which is that which causes scandal, but a public & known thing that the Gentiles were conversed with & preached too, Act. 11. v. 1. we read that the Apostles & Brethren which were in judea 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 Jerusalem heard of it, they sent Barnabas (to them) to Antioch for the same end: So that see how the Church of the jews furthered & promoted the preaching to the Gentiles, so far were they from being now scandalised at it. After that, Barnabas brought Paul also thither, & they preached there one whole year, v. 26. and more particularly to the Gentiles, as Dr. H. grants, at least promiscuously none ever denied; nor did this year only intervene (sufficient time to let the jews in the same city know that the Gentiles might be conversed with & preached to) but many more ere the controversy about the Gentile diet happened, as may easily be gathered from the 2. chapter to the Gal: it being expressed there to have been fowerteen year 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 preached the Gospel in many villages of the Samarians. Yet Dr. H after all this public preaching to Gentiles & Samaritans, avowed to be lawful by the so long & frequent practice & doctrine of the chiefest Apostles & pillars of Christianity, and (which is worth noting) most solemnly & openly professed & exercised at Antioch in particular, will yet after all this have the jewish Christians in Antioch ignorant that it was lawful to converse with or preach to a Gentile; And all this, because rather than he will yield to the plainest truth, there is no paradox so absurd, so non-sensicall & contradictory, but he thinks it worth his patronage, so it yields him the mutual succour of any sorry evasion, when he is taken in a falsification or some other unavoidable weakness.  
But, though nothing else could bridle Dr. H. from such extravagancy of insincerity & weakness, 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 own lists. His own words which occasioned this debate, of Schism p. 75 are these, we read of S. Peter & the jewish 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 'tis impossible to get a word of sense or sincerity, but perpetually he both corrupts other men's 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 imagine that, each party being Christians, they should avoid even courteous or civil 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 jewish Proselytes: Now, since Schism is formally & point blank counterposed to Union & 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 jewish Proselytes who behaved themselves actively in this point, it follows by most absolute & necessary consequence, that they must be all Schismatics, and Blessed S. Peter their Ringleader. But 'tis no matter with him; rather shall S. Peter instead of being Head of the Church, be an Head of Schismatics, than Dr. H. be acknowledged a Schismatic & a falsifier: and, not only the Authority but also the Sanctity of that holy Apostle be sacrificed to the Protestant interest, rather than so great a Patron of theirs, and so saintly a falsifier shall want an evasion to solder his cracked credit. Neither let Dr. H. think to escape making S. Peter & his jewish converts Schismatics by saying that this was a prudent managery only (Rep. p. 62.) & so justifiable 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 laid against himself in his first Chapter of Schism p. 10. that the matter of fact only is to be considered not the causes or motives. Since eo ipso that fact is Schism, nor can be justified from being such by any causes, motives, or circumstances whatsoever; Now then, since the fact of breaking from all-Communion which the Gentile Church, that is of Schism from it is in express terms imputed to S. Peter & his jewish Proselytes by Dr. H. I expect then what possible motive this Author can pretend to allege 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 justify it from being Schism, nay damnable, worse than sacrilege, Idolatry, etc. as the fathers there cited by D H. avouch.  
The sum then of this part of Dr. H's defence is, that he takes no notice at all of his falsifying by adding the only important & large-senced 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 jewish 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 eat their diet. A paradox so incomparably & notoriously absurd, that it is at once both perfectly opposite to the law itself, repugnant to innumerable examples from Scripture to the contrary, & the universal practice of the Synagogue; injurious to the jewish Church in its purest times, making them frequently, publicly & uncontrolledly break the law in a point (as he says) equally forbidden as eating the Gentile diet; implicatory in terms, supposing once the lawfulness of making a Proselyte; impertinent to his present purpose & circumstances were it granted; expressly 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 Schismatics & S. Peter their Ringleader; and that, proceeding on Dr. H's own grounds. Nor hath he any thing to counterpoise this heap of absurdities of the Seventeens, but only 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 universal Tradition of the foregoing Church, importing, involving & bringing down to us all imaginable motives of the contrary truth evidence that Interpretation to be impossible. But 'tis no matter what Dr. H. does or says; if he can but talk any thing gently & slightly, the grave negligence must supply the want of sense & Truth; especially if he but shut upwith a victorious Epiphonema, pronounced with a serious-sobersadnes (Repl p. 61. l. ult.) 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 examined is the most sublimated quintessence of contradiction-absurdity, as hath amply been shown.  
Now as for S. Peter's words that it was unlawful for a man that was a jew to keep company or come to one that is of their Nation, upon which only he build his position, otherwise altogether destitute of any shadow of proof. I answer, that the Scribes & such like pretenders to a preciser Kind of holiness, had lately introduced many customs of their own forging, under the notion of Traditions (of some of which they are accused by our saviour) and obtruded them upon the consciences of the jews to be religiously observed; especially at Jerusalem the Rendezvous of jewish Doctors, and the place where their doctrine had more immediate influence upon the minds of of they Auditors. Of those precise customs this was one, of not going to a Gentiles house, or conversing with them. To this, amongst others, S. Peter was enured 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 universum 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 tie upon him, and having received order to preach first to the jews until they showed 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 jews, & did not turn to the Gentiles but upon their rejecting him.  
By unlawful then in this place I take not to be meant, not against the law of Moses; but, what their Teachers and Doctors, who governed their Consciences, bore them in hand was unlawful: in the same manner as we now call many things unlawful, which are not found forbidden by Christ's law, but which our Doctors and Casuists judge to be unlawful. Again, we read that though the Apostles and Brethren that were in judea had heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God. Act. 11. v. 1. yet the second verse let's us know of none that found fault with him save those at Jerusalem only; and that, not merely 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 be never so universal to abhor the conversation of Gentiles, whiles they remained Gentiles; yet, it is the strangest fancy that ever entered into a rational head, to imagine 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 jew nor Gentile. Which sounds a far greater absurdity in a Christian ear, than to say that they likewise abhorred 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 jews in Salomon's time, neither conversed with their neighbour jews, 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 Apostolical Constitutions, and to take notice of all the Exceptions brought against that Testimony in Schism Disarmed. His acute manner of arguing. As also how he brings a Testimony against him in every particular to make good all his former proofs; and by what art he makes it speak for him.  
THe next Testimony of Mr. H's which comes under examination, is taken from the writer of the Apostolical Constitutions, who tells us (according to Dr. H. of Schism, p. 75.) that Evod●us & Ignatius at the same time sat Bishops at Antioch, one succeeding S. Peter the other S. Paul, one in the jewish, 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 & wilful falsifier? Schism Disarmed challenged him upon this occasion of a manifest falsification; and that that writer neither tells us (as Dr. H. pretended) that they sat 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 jewish & Gentile Congregations were distinct, much less that those Apostles jurisdictions at Antioch were mutually limited, which indeed only concerned his purpose; but only that they were ordained by the Apostles, The text being only 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 Disarmed 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.) he referred me for answer to this point; nor to show us that that writer tells us what he so largely promised us; of Schism p. 75. only 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 forestalled; he should have said misreading, for it was mine eyes & not mine understanding which failed me, if he had not added to this testimony all which made for his purpose.  
Four 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 particularised the place in the Author where this testimony was to be found, which he ordinarily uses, but leaves us to look for it in a whole book, hoping we might either be weary in looking it, or miss, & so● himself in the mean time escape scot-free. Lastly, he so iumbles together the two different letters (as his common trick is) that no man living can make any guess 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 sat at the same time Bishops, we find the most considerable word same put in a less letter, as if it were part of the citation, whereas no such word nor any thing to that sense 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 custom is) attempts to sh●w himself an acute Doctor; and when it was his turn to sh●w us the pretended words in his testimony, he recurs to the defence of the position itself. And first he cries quits which the Catholic Gentleman who, as he tells us in a dry 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 bishoprics in Antioch & Rome.  
This is the Catholic Gentleman's stone, as he calls it, which levelled 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, 'tis granted; but what is this to the point; since this might easily be performed by their promiscuous preaching, without exclusion of jurisdiction, or breaking of all Communion between Churches.  
Secondly, that he manifested there, that there were two Churches at Antioch, the one of the jews 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 only that from the Arch-heretick Pelagius, already replied to, Sect 7  
Thirly that in those Churches at the same time sat two distinct Bishops, Euodius & Ignatius. I answer this is only proved from his own falsification of the testimony from the Apostolical 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 Catholic Gentleman's stone sticks yet insost reasoned Dr. H. for want of solidness in the place it light to reverberate its motion.  
Now let us see what Dr. H. who brags so much of a Hending his Adversaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath left unreplyed upon in this his Answer to Schism Disarmed: in which Treatise, p. 66. I objected all these weaknesses in this one point.  
First, that were it granted that two sat together it would not serve his turn a jot 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 jurisdictions at Antioch, therefore S. Peter's jurisdiction was limited, therefore the Pope had not an illimitted one: but how doth the one's presiding over jews the other over Gentiles argue a limitation of that power itself, or at all necessarily touch the interior Right? suppose 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 only 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 real not seeming counter-Iurisdiction. I am sure as yet he hath not produced any thing at all to disannul this instance of his arguments in consequence, nor strengthened 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 Auditors coming promiscuously to hear their doctrine, but there must necessarily be a distinction of the jewish & Gentile caetus, the jewish under one & the Gentiles under tother, as Dr. H. expresses it Answ. p. 48. lin. ult.) telling us there that there could not be two Bishops in Rome without this distinction. Further, let us suppose that the jewish Christians would not mingle with the Gentiles in the exercise of divine worship where there was this scandalising diversity of their ceremonies (for I cannot think that, holding them their fellow Christians, they should be so uncharitable as to abhor their Communion as much as if they had been excommunicate, Schismatics, Heretics, or as if they had still remained Heathen as Dr. H. contends) yet I see no impossibility that S. Peter in his half of the City should some times go to jewis Congregation, sometimes to the Gentile; & S. Paul do the like in his; So that still Dr. H's supple bow of reason is far 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 jurisdiction when they met: It infers no more but that they acted prudently in so doing, & so as no wise man can be imagined ' willing to do otherwise; since common sense 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 'twas 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 business whose force it is not possible S. W. should dicert; though neither it nor any testimony else express a syllable of S. Peter being over ●ews only, S. Paul over Gentiles, is the point to be proved by it; but no where expressed save only 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 alleged by himself out of Eusebius and Origen calling Ignatius the second, & out of S. Jerome calling him the third, make against the sitting of those two together, his express & 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 witness the same & confirm my objection.  
Thirdly he was told that he will never find S. Paul was accounted a parcell-Bishop in Antioch that he should have a properly called successor there, etc. In order to which, he offers us no reply save only his own former weak fancy.  
Fourthly that he undid all he had said with a testimony of Theodoret, which affirmed in express opposition to his former place out of the Apostolical Constitutions, that Ignatius was ordained by S. Peter. To which opposite testimony instead of answering, he (seconds it with a another Reply p. 63. lin. ult.) was ever such a disputant heard of.  
Lastly, it was objected that the Apostolical 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 we have far more reason to judge that S. Peter ordained Ignatius also then Evodius only. Whence I forth deduce that if, in the Drs. grounds, Ignatius were over the Gentiles, & ordained 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 adversary's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, step by step; though he still avoids him then most warily, when his attendance is most necessary.  
Nothing therefore hath Mr. H. replied to those concerning Exceptions of mine, nothing to his own testimonies in particular, though shown to have been against him. Yet something he must say to every thing in one manner or other; that's resolved; except it be to show 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, unless he first prove the necessity of each testimonies being true, which he never attempts; otherwise, to go about to prove a truth by reconciling falsehoods, or truths with falsehoods, is such a new invention 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 Apostolical Constitutions is acknowled'gd to be corrupt by the Protestants themselves; &, consequently, unless he vindicate first that his main testimony fetched thence is true, for any thing he knows he goes about to reconcile a truth with a falsehood; at lest Theodoret's Authority standing against it, it is justly 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 several 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 invented 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 Antiquity blind, ●ll his new fangled concied or Scholion which he puts 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 be friends.  
But who is the Umpire to decide this contradiction-quarrell? one, God knows whom, called joannes Malela Antiochenus: and the testimony from him is found in a manuscript in Oxford Library: that is, we may go 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 public & easy to be examined, and take the place as we find it by himself. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. when Peter went to Rome, passing by Antioch the Great, Euodius Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch happend' to die & Ignatius received the Bishopric, S. Peter ordaining & enthroning him. Was there ever testimony imaginable more express against this very point in controversy and that in every particular than this he alleges as the knot of all his proof. See his book of Schism. p. 75. l 26. 27. where he contends from the Apostolical Constitutions that Euodius & Ignatius sat at the same time Bishops of Antioch. See joannes Malela's testimony, which was to button together all the rest, and conclude the controversy [Euodius happened to die & Ignatius succeeded him in the Bishopric.] See in the true testimony from the Apostolical Constitutions put down Schism Disarmed p. 65. because Dr. H. had falsified it, Ignatius ordinatus est a Paulo, Ignatius was ordained by Paul: See Malela [Ignatius received the Bishopric, S. Peter ordaining him. Lastly see in Malela's testimony Bishopric in the singular, Bishop and Patriarch in the singular; whereas Dr. H. all over makes it his whole design to prove Bishops, two Bishoprics at once in the same City. Observe the word Patriarch, & ask Dr. H. whether he thinks in his conscience there were two Patriarches at Antioch one over jews, another over Gentiles, or where can he even pretened to have read or heard of such an absurd tenet. In a word there is scarce any proposition affirmed by Dr. H. in order to this present point, but finds here its express contrary; and yet he brings this as the upshot of all his proofs, and as that where in he meant 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 wholly 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 alleging 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 its 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 happened to die, and Ignatius (who was, as was said, first constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there) received the Bishopric (that, I suppose, must now be of the jewish Province also, over which Euodius had been in his life time) S. Peter ordaining & enthroning him. Now, as for the testimony itself, taken alone it is expressly against him, as hath been shown; the only virtue & force of it lies in the parenthesisses; and if we examine these, the total 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 Antiquity or common sense, 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 express word from any testimony save from his own knowledge, his own saying, and his own suppositions. The result is that this testimony, the upshot & knot of all the rest, is itself absolutely against him, and only brought to countenance his parenthesisses, not with its influence, but with its presence; So that his testimonies are as it were the Stock upon which he ingrafts his own 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 itself is of, since the fruit of testifying in favour of his tenet is to be expected from the accessary scyons or sprigs (his voluntary additions) and so need not resemble the Stock, which may be of an indifferent, perhaps contrary nature.   

Sect 17.  
How Dr. H. slightly waves to strengthen his six Testimonies shown invalid by Schism Disarmed; and, in particular, what work he makes with a Testimony from S. Prosper.  
HIs six following testimonies to prove that S. Peter was over jews only at Rome, and S Paul over Gentiles are shown (Schism Disarmed, 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 Authority than an exclusive one; since they only 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 jurisdiction of these Apostles one over jews the other over Gentiles; whereas, there was not one exclusive particle in any one of them, nor so much as jew 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 believe that the testimonies were parallel to his own confident affirmation that it was evident, was there laid 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 jews, S. Paul of Gentiles: whereas the testimonies which he ushered in with so many Soes 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 concerned is reviewed Repl, c. 9 where nothing is found to that purpose, nor any where else, save only, in the Sect. 7. par. 6. Where when I came to look in expectation of some return to my exceptions, I found that he only enumerated briefly the same testimonies of his former book, his irrefragable one (as he calls it) from the Pope's ●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 me, & related us back in the margin 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 faced 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 loss & 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' jews & Gentiles; the sum of his Reply is only 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 proof added to his We know, I say, & I suppose, to wit his own [Sure,] the Sure nail fastened 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 rendered 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 considered by the words cited from him. The words are these, in ipsâ Hierusalem lacobus, etc. james at Jerusalem, john at Ephesus, Andrew & the rest through out all Asia, Gentium Ecclesiam sacrârunt, consecrated the Church of the Nations (says Dr. H.) Gentiles (says S. W.) Upon this testimony Dr. H. argues thus. What Nations were these? Sure of jews aswell as Gentiles: then follow the Grounds of this his assurance; else Jerusalem could be no part of them, no nor John's converts at Ephesus, for they were jews, and then he concludes his mild-reasoning discourse with as mild a reprehension, that therefore the Catholic Gentleman did not do well. Now, as for his Sure, 'tis indeed a pregnant expression; but I deny the sufficiency of the Authority which so Magisterially pronounces it; And, for what concerns the Grounds of his assurance, they are both of them found only in his own sayings, & no where in any testimony; my tenet, he knows, is, that all those Apostles preached promiscuously to Gentiles also where soever they came. But, lest he should think me hard hearted for not believing his Sure, I shall at least show myself far from cruelty in making him this friendly proffer, that if he can show me any one word in any testimony yet produced, which expresses that S. james preached to jews only in Jerusalem, or S. john to jews only in Ephesus, upon which alone he builds here that Gentium cannot signify Gentiles, I will pardon him the answering this whole book; which to do on any fashion will I know be very laborious & shameful to him; but to do it satisfactorily impossible, unless he could put out his Reader's Eyes, & so hinder them from reading his corrupted & falsified citations aright. Is there anything easier than to show us an exclusive particle or expression if any such thing were to be found there: But, if there be none, what an emptiness, vanity & open cozenage of his Reader is it to cry Sure, Surely, Certainly, Unquestionably, and the like, when there is no other warrant to ground this assurance, save his own weak fancy, inconsequent deductions, h●s interlaced parenthesisses, his facing the testimonies with antecedent, piecing them with subsequent words; whiles, in the mean time, the testimony itself must stand by & look on only 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 its title.  
But to come to the testimony itself: first, I would know of Mr. H. how oft he hath read Gentes taken alone without any additional & determining expression to signify both jews & Gentiles; unless it be in this sense as it probably might be in S Prosper's time, that Gentium Ecclesia signified the Christian Church, in which the jews were included, yet being no considerable part of it, they needed not be expressed. Next, as for the word Nations which he recurs to, I would ask whether (though those in judea were styled the Nation of the jews) yet, whether those in dispersion at Rome were called a Nation or no, or rather a Sect Thirdly, let Gentium signify, of the Nations, as he would have it, let us see how Dr. H. hath advantaged his cause: For, if it be so, than the words Gentium Ecclesiam sacrarunt, they consecrated the Church of the Nations, are to be applied to all the Apostles there mentioned: Now then, since Nations (as Dr. H. tells us here) is Sure of jews aswel as Gentiles, the testimony must run thus, james at Jerusalem consecrated the Church of jews aswell as Gentiles, john at Ephesus consecrated the Church of jews aswell as Gentiles, Andrew & the rest throughout all Asia consecrated the Church of the jews aswell as Gentiles; and the like of Peter & Paul at Rome. Thus Dr. H. thinking to stop one hole hath made other three quite destroys 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 belief 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 divers tune. Hence applied to S. james & S john, it must be imagined to signify jews only, because 'tis against the interest of his tenet that they should open their mouths to convert a Gentile at Jerusalem and Ephesus: But then S. Andrew & the rest are not Apostles of the Circumcision, & so according to him must not preach to a jew in Asia, presently upon this the janus' faced word Gentium turns the other side of its visage towards us, & represents to us Gentiles only; yet, all this could not content Dr. H. he had a mind to limit S. Peter's Authority when he met S. Paul in the same City, which he could find no handsomerway to do then by making one over the jews only, the other over only the Gentiles: No sooner had Dr. H fancied this, but immediately the obedient word Gentium turned round, & showed us both its faces; and did not now signify jews only, nor yet Gentiles only, as fomerly but jews & Gentiles both; And yet, when this is done, it expresses nothing to the contrary, but that each preached to both. Is not this a rare disputant? Lastly, I would gladly know where he ever heard or how he came to imagine that the word Gentes could signify jews only, as it must according to his Grounds, as applied to S. james at Jerusalem, and S. john at Ephesus? Reader perhaps it may cause mirth in thee to read such Gottam-absurdities in a Dr. of Divinity, but I assure thee it is most wearisome to me to stand laying open such weak impertinencies, nor do I hope for any honourable triumph from the confuting such trash.   

Sect. 18.  
Dr. H's Irrefragable, Evidence from the Pope's Seals disclaimed by himself, and, expressly denied to be a proof. His manner of arguing by ask questions.  
But as the lesser lights vanish at the rising of the Sun so we cannot but imagine 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 Matthew Paris in their behalf? that S. Paul stands on the right hand the Cross, & S. Peter on the left; and this is produced by Dr. H. as an irrefragable Evidence that S. Peter was over the jews 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 only 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 wronged Mr. H. and shall ask him pardon: If not, I shall ask no further satisfaction of him save only to leave him to the Reader's judgements when I shall have once convinced him by their eyes. In his book 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 jews another of Gentiles. After which position immediately follow the testimonies which should have proved it, beginning thus; So saith S. Irenaeus, & more expressly Epiphanius, So the Inscription on their Tombs, 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 jews S. Paul over the Gentiles at Rome. But 'tis an ordinary evasion with him to deny his own words.  
Nor is this all which these Seals of the Popes were to Evidence Irrefragably; Let us trace the original position for which it was produced, & we shall find it, (of Schism p. 74.) to be this long rabble; that whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same City, the one constantly applied himself to the Jews, received Disciples of such, form 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 chimerical 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, etc.) after this follows his proofs for the same tenet, So saith Epiphanius, Gaius, Dionysius, etc.] 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 sense, to wit, that whensoever those two great Apostles came to one City, etc. 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 applied himself to the jews, received Disciples of such, form 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 only prevaricated from his Irrefragable Evidence by denying the manifest scope of it expressed 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 only with his proof out of Scripture Gal. 2. that Peter was by agreement to betake himself to the jews. Whereas first that place of Scripture had been produced pag. 73. but this pregnant Seal-testimony, & most of its fel● owes 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 cleared 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 Antiquity in this matter Nay, he stuck so strongly to the testimony of Epiphanius, Answ. p. 48. that he maintained it impossible for S. W. to divert the force of it. So that the, same six testimonies & Pope's Seals were there called Evidences, clear & sole-sufficient proofs, which are here denied to be proofs at all, but only 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 jurisdictions, and so had then no better shift save only to make another dumb show of the selfsame testimonies, & then cry them up for clear Evidences & sole-sufficient proofs from Antiquity. Here the weakness of his pretended best, I mean his Irrefragable Evidence, was shown to be most silly & weak; where upon himself modestly decries both that & its fellow Evidences of an inferior rank, & says 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 meant they were only 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 Disarmed ever challenge him to prove this; but that they founded that Church with exclusive jurisdiction over jews & 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 jurisdiction of the one over jews at Rome, the other over Gentiles, unless he will confess 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 jews S. Paul of Gentiles, and then immediately subjoined his proofs in this form, So saith Irenaeus, etc. it is impossible to imagine 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 jews, S. Paul over Gentiles, he denies by consequence that he hath produced any proof at all for that fancy of his, except his own 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 confess, towards the latter end of the 10th parag. he hath a very express proof in these words, [Peter's being over the jews at Rome we make no Question] he must mean over jews only, for otherwise it opposes not us who hold him ourselves to have been over both jews & Gentiles there; So that he carries the whole question between us by saying 'tis 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 says that these testimonies are spoken only 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 itself, as is evident by my second, let us examine a little nearer Dr. H's reach of reason, and strength of Logic. What mean these words that they are not produced for proofs but in agreement. I ask, have they any influence or efficacity 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 arguments & proofs in its 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 neutral testimonies; yet Dr. H. takes it ill here that I should offer to make any incoherence appear in his discourse who never in his life knew what it was to make any notions cohere at all, save only in a loose Sermonary way, which the least puff of declamatory air would counterbuff 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. 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 agreeable to Peter's preaching the jews and Paul's to the Gentiles when they met in a City where were multitudes of both? I answer you must mean to jews only, for 'tis our tenet that each preached to both; and than you have been often challenged that you have not brought one syllable of proof for it but your own word only. Nor is their founding the Church agreeable even to your own words in any other sense then as agreeable signifies indifferent, or not contrary to it, since the founding a Church, signifies only 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 only a common endeavour in doing it, 'tis rather inclinable to a promiscuous sense; nay, the force of the word, the Church, which is to be understood of God's Church at Rome, eudently 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 jews others to Gentiles was a pure sequel: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Circumcision, to which S. Peter lent at that time his special endeavours, signified the country of judea, not the jews in dispersion, all which hath been manifested most particularly heretofore, Sect. 6. much less 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 citys immediately for it Gal. 2. 9 without the words. But he proceeds. And is not that an Argument that Peter was not the universal Pastor, but that the Gentiles were S. Paul's Province, as the jews S. Peter's. Not a jott good Dr. your premises are no stronger than your bare saying, which makes your inference thence weaker than water. Your conceit of Provinces the groundwork of all your pitiful discourse was shown to be a groundless fiction. Nor, were there such, would it make for your purpose unless they were exclusive; nor would it serve your intent that there was exclusiveness in the actual endeavours of the Apostles, but you must evince an exclusiveness in Right ere you can pretend to limit a Right: nor have you brought as yet one express word of any testimony to make good the least of these. Again, if by universal Pastor you mean one who hath jurisdiction 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 yourself, we grant each Apostle to have been an universal Pastor in this sense; but, if you mean that S. Peter was not higher in Authority 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 distinced from S. Paul's, is not even now a days, the Pope's Bishopric limited 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 Patriarches, and yet we see de facto, that he is held chief Bishop in the Church & higher in Authority then the rest notwithstanding. Do not our eyes and the experience of the whole world testify this to be so? yet were all the former absurd inventions of Apostolical Provinces, their exclusiveness, S. Peter over the jews only, etc. granted; still his utmost inference would be no stronger than this now related which the eyes of all the world gainsay; to wit, that because others had their particular assignations, Provinces, or bishoprics distinct from S. Peter's, therefore S. Peter could not be higher in Authority then those others; by which one may see that my learned Adversary understands not what is meant by the Authority he impugns; but makes account the Pope cannot be Head of the Church, unless 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 only say that he is higher than the rest in jurisdiction & power of command in things belonging to the universal good of the Church. This point than should have been struck at & disputed against, not that other never held by us, that none in the Church hath his particular Bishopric or assignation save the Pope only, against which only Dr. H. makes head while he makes it the utmost aim 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 he could not show one express word limiting the Apostles jurisdictions 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 pitiful weaknesses,  
AFter Dr. H's Irrefragable Evidence followed immediately (of Schism p. 74.) And all this very agreeable to the story of Scripture, which (according to the brevity of the relations there made) only sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the Circumcision; and of his being so at Rome we make no question Upon these words, his Disarmer (Schism Disarm. p 73.) enumerated as many significations imported by that word only, as were obvious, & confuted them severally, because he found the words ambiguous; telling him that neither doth Scripture only set down S. Peter as Apostle of the Circumcision but james & john also Gal. 2. 9 nor is S. Peter any where expressed as Apostle of only the Circumcision but expressly particularised the contrary Act. 15. & 7. His Answer. p. 50. affords us a third signification, so impossible for S. W. to imagine, as it was to foresee all the weaknese Dr. H's cause could put him upon. 'Tis this, that Peter's preaching to the jewish caetus at Rome, etc. Now, had the Scripture produced by him made any particular relation at all of any such matter, than indeed his [only] might have been thought to mean the want of more particular relation, etc. but if in no place alleged by him there had been found the least particular relation at all either of a jewish caetus at Rome, or S. Peter's preaching to it particularly, or indeed so much as intimating his preaching in that City, than what ground had Dr. H. given me to imagine that the restrictive particle only 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 knowledge 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 sense I conceived that ambiguous word might bear, I repeated my challenge to him Schism Disarm. p. 73. that, Peter's Jurisdiction to the jews only & excluding it from the Gentiles, I would yield him the Laurel and quit the Controversy. 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 Controversy, which I dare say he reputes he ever meddled with; yet was he very hasty to begin with Controversies voluntarily & unprovoked; and now when he sees himself answered & unable to reply, the moderate man grows weary & wishes himself at an end of them, as if he thought himself, when he begun first, so great a Goliath 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 only of him to show one exclusive word expressed in order to S. Peter's jurisdiction in any one of those many testimonies he produced for that end. Secondly, let him candidly observe what infinite disadvantage I offer myself, & what an incomparable advantage I offer my adversary in such an unparallelled proffer and condescension; one restrictive word for the restrictive point now in question between us, makes him and undoes me. Thirdly, let him remember how Dr. H. called those proofs Evidences for that restrictive point, the whole Controversy being about the limitation or illimitation of jurisdiction; and the total scope of that first half of c. 4. to limit S. Peter's to the jews only. 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 expressed his intent Answ. p. 11. Fifthly, the conditions of the victory are the most facile that can be imagined; for, what easier than to show one exclusive particle, as only, solely, alone, or some such like, expressed 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 show some such word expressed in some testimony. Seventhly he is alured to do it by the tempting hope to be at an end of Controversy, as himself confesses. And lastly, unless he come of well from so condescending, & so easy a challenge already accepted of, that is, unless he show some such exclusive particle expressed in some testimony he cannot avoid manifesting himself the most shameful writer that ever handled pen, the most pernicious ruiner of Souls that ever treated controversy, the most insincereconscienced man that ever pretended to the name of a Christian, if in treating a question about Schism in which is interessed men's eternal salvation & damnation, as himself proves amply of Schism c. 1. and the most fundamental point thereof, as himself likewise confesses this to be, which concerns S. Peter's universal jurisdiction (Answ. p. 74) he cannot produce nor pick out one express word to that purpose from that whole army of his testimonies which he called Evidences, but from his own words only; So that all the motives imaginable conspire to ma●e Dr. H. as good as his word, the hazard of his Reader's eternal damnation; the care of his own conscience, & of his own credit; the hope to be at an end of Controversy, (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 own acceptation here of the challenge.  
By this time I know the Reader expects that Dr. should come thundering out with a whole volley of testimonies, showing in each of them plain words expressing his tenet, at least that he should produce some one express particle, limiting S. Peter's Authority without the help of his scruing deductions, as he promised his challenger; But, he, never so much as attempts what he late pretended; th●t is, he attempts not to show any express 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 debarred his scruing deductions, and required some one express restrictive word; he links three citations together to make a sleight gloss, which no one alone could do, and then deduces & concludes, which was interdicted by his self-accepted challenge. What need three testimonies, strung together, to show 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 promised me some one word which was express, that is, which needed no conclusion at all; he puts me of with a conclusion only which intimates there was never an express word. His deductions are his, the words are the testimonies; I never challenged 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 dumb, without one express word in them to his purpose. This word which would have saved & gained 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 own bare unauthorised 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 imagined agreement for exclusive Provinces, that of Epiphanius saying that the two Apostles were Bishops in Rome, and that of the Arch heretic Pelagius, concerning the holding a part the jewish & 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, expressed in any one of his citations for his exclusive tenet, and the first of the three long 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 express; & 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 imagine, since none ever dreamt that Epiphanius spoke of two different Peter & Paul's whom he called Bishops, from those he called in the same line & with in the same comma, Apostles▪ And, as for his last testimony 'tis borrowed, from the Arch-heretick Pelagius as hath been shown heretofore, Sect. 7. Moreover grant that the Congregations of jews & Gentiles were for a while during the heat of the Scandal 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 jewish zeal at Antioch; and the vehemency of the Scandal, by the Apostles prudence, went on mitigating every day; So as this unauthentick testimony borrowed from the wicked Pelagius, hath not one express word of exclusion even of the jewish caetus at Rome, much less of the Apostles were exclusively over those two caetusses (as he terms them) nor hath Dr. H. any reason to think that all the jews of the dispersion were thus zealous, since we may gather easily (Act. 13. 42.) that both jews & Gentiles were together when S. Paul preached at the Synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia, and most expressly Act. 14. v. 1. 19 we read that in Iconium, Paul & Barnabas went both together into the Synagogue of the jews & so spoke that a great multitude both of the jews & also of the Gentiles believed Which, besides that it shows plainly the jews 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 denied nay laughed 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 jews at Antioch were too nice, yet he hath none at all, no not so much as a word, that this fastidious zeal was epidemical, or that it was so at Rome; Nor does this testimony from Pelagius express this at all either in circumstances of time or place; and this express place of Scripture with its fellows are main prejudices against it. Yet Dr. H. vaunts his undaunted valour, that from these three testimonies Peter's jurisdiction was restrained to the jews only & exclusively to the Gentiles. And, I question not but Dr. H. is a very bold adventurer, & is not a afraid to infer the most absurd & remote positions that ever were dreamt 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 showing me one express word in them, is not of itself 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 jews & Gentiles was taken away) unless 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 jewish & Gentile caetus: And, if by practice, he means common practice, 'tis granted; but if he means it was never practised upon occasion, as his words [contrary to all practice] intimate, than I suppose one instance will suffice to destroy his universal position to wit that three pairs of Bishops Meletius and Paulinus, Paulinus and Flavianus, Flavianus and Euagrius, sat successively two together Bishops of Antioch. Now what occasion there was for this in the Apostles days shall quickly be shown. It follows, in proof of the one expresse-worded-Conclusion, If there were two such caetus, than they that were of one caetus under one Bishops, were not of the other caetus under the other Bishop. I answer, 'tis 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 only prop of his cause as to this point; for he can never make his unconnected ends of testimonies meet but by the mediation of this. Secondly, because no Bishop was to meddle in another man's Province. Which, till the Testimony from Pelagius be made authentic, touches not us; for till then it is not proved these two Apostles had such distinct Provinces. He 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 seemed even to come near the question) than the former arguments return again, that showed from Scriptures & Antiquity that S. Paul was independent from S. Peter, and that S. Paul had the Primatum Prmacy among the Gentiles as Peter among the jews. 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 produced a word either from Scripture or Antiquity 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 actual giving the power depended not on S. Peter, but was done immediately by Christ, the Scripture, is express & plain. As for his second argument 'tis 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 margin. 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 jews only as contradinguished from Gentiles, though by the force of the very phrase it signify the whole Church of Christ made up of both jews & Gentiles, & so is expressly contrary to him, & definitive for our tenet as is shown heretofore, Sect. 7. His last Stop-danger is, that, though it may be that S. Peter did convert some other such as Cornelius (that is, other jews) yet this is not argumentative for S. W. being nothing to the matter of jurisdiction, and withal 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 unless the inference be necessary? or how can the inference be necessary, unless 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 myself 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 augmentative 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 Logical disputation. If I have done more in most places than I was obliged, and shown that the contrary not only may be, but is, & very many times that it must be; and so have wronged perhaps myself in taking more pains with such a trifler then needs; I hope I have not been injurious to my cause by showing myself 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. says) is nothing to the matter of jurisdiction (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, confuting at once almost all his third Chapter, the most substantial part of his book; which Chapter though concerning jurisdiction (as indeed the whole question is) yet runs 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 defined 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 jews, 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 jurisdiction. See p. 78. S. Peter was Apostle of the circumcision: S. Paul preached at Rome in his own hired house. p. 84. that S. Peter's baptising many into the faith of Christ, etc. in Brittany must be extended no farther than his line as he is Apostles of the jews. So that, there he argued from preaching or Conversion, to jurisdiction, which he says here is nothing to it; And the words he there intermingled, expressing more particularly jurisdiction, 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. john at Ephesus, which hinders not but the particular Bishop of another see may be higher than he; as we see now a days that more particular Bishops are subject to their Metropolitain; and so such a jurisdiction is nothing to our question, unless he first evidence its 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 agreeable Testimony (as he calls it) shown neither to agree with Scripture, the Author he citys to prove it, nor yet with his own grounds.  
THus much in answer to my wordish Adversary; now for the point itself 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 itself joined with the prudence of the Apostles. The Spirit confirmed twelve were sent to preach to all Nations; when, & where, was left to God's provident disposing of circumstances applied to their prudence. For, the task being difficult, & they not knowing by prophetical foresight what place & time would for the future be always most convenient (as appears by S. Paul needing a vision of a man of Macedonia to direct him thiter and other times of a special direction of the Holy Ghost) they were to govern themselves by that high prudence which amongst other gifts reigned down upon them in Pentecost. Most lingered in judea till occasional circumstances together with the inspiration of the holy Ghost, dispersed them; some went one way, some another. Amongst the rest (to particularise in two, & come nearer our point) S. Peter & S. Paul, the two most efficacious Apostles, were after some years by an especial providence 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 Apostolical Trumpets. This done, they fall to preach; the heavenly newness of their doctrine, the prodigiousnes of their miracles make multitudes flock to them from all parts. In the City were Gentiles & jews both. Nor have we any ground to imagine that God's providence was so miraculously particular, as to direct only jews to S. Peter, & only 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 preached it impartially to all; equally promiscuously then they preached each of them both to jews & Gentiles. For it had been the hihgest imprudence to hazard the loss of yet weak & slenderly-moued Souls by seeming to neglect them, and sending them away to another; & to order their actions ere they had owned their wills. The converts baptised by each could not but take a very particular ply & addiction to their proper Apostle & father. Let us put case then that there should happen a scandal of the jewish converts under each against the Gentiles (which yet Dr. H. no where showed 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 quarrel between them, or that they abstained from all Communion, is an absolute impossibility asserted only by a plain falsification, as hath been shown.) Let us consider what effects such a scandal 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 jewish from S. Paul to S. Peter? or rather that the Apostles prudence ordered things so, that, when in any assembly where some practice emergent out of the favourable conceit the jews 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 scandal. We find plainly by the place lately cited that in other circumstances the jews 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 imagines) each might preach and celebrate to one after the other was departed, or else in several places; any thing is more easy to be imagined than that all of each side should forsake their proper Apostle & more than father, to whom under God they owed 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 followed 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 until their deaths. Nor doth this oppose us at all, since not only reason grants it, but our own eyes & evident experience attest it, that either of them may be immediate Bishops over several 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 Archbishop, an Archbishop & 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 jews only, the other over Gentiles, for which he produced it; nor yet that one of them was not Superior to the other. But to return to my Aduersary's Answer.  
Another agreeable 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 own hired house receiving them that came unto him. Act. 28. 30. which will most fitly be applied to the Gentiles of that City, the jews having solemnly departed from him. v. 29. Thus he, of Schism p. 78.  
I replied (though such a sapless trifle required none) that there was no such word as solemnly in the testimony, upon which only 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 'tis 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 cities the place for it, without intimating at all, that 'tis his own deduction only from that place, but, by the whole carriage of it, gulling the unwary Reader that all is pure Scripture, to which he subjoins 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 solemn departure was found v. 29. which he cited for it? I denied not the solemnity of reprehension expressed to the unbelieving jews in other verses, but only, that there was any solemnity of departure expressed in that verse; for read the whole place, & we find not a word of any resolution in them to come no more, much less of any resolution in S. Paul not to preach to them, wheresoever he found them in other places (which nevertheless was that which Dr. H. should have showed) and indeed nothing but an ordination of God, that his law should be preached to Gentiles. [First then, the words of solemn reprehension, [The heart of this people is waxen gross, and their ears dull of hearing] are impossible to be applied to the jews which believed, as is expressed v. 24. we have therefore no ground hence of any solemnity of departure in order to them.  
Secondly S. chrysostom whom he citys here for this point only says as he puts him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when they agreed not they departed; that is, they not believing forsaken him, where 'tis plain he speaks expressly of the unbelieving not of the believing, and yet plainer f●om what Dr. H. puts after wards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those words of Scripture he applied to them upon their unbelief. Now, since S. chrysostom speaks of those to whom S. Paul applied the words of Scripture, & these are impossible to be applied to the jews which v. 24. believed, it is equally impossible his words should be appliable to the believing jews.  
Thirdly, grant he had solemnly reprehended the innocent believing jews 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 done even to the unbelievers 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 jews boldly that they would turn to the Gentiles, & departed more solemnly, shaking of the dust of their feet, v. 51. and yet they afterwards preached many times to the jews, as is to be seen in the Acts. By which I only could mean that this greater vehemency & solemnity of their departure hindered them not yet from applying themselves to the jews for the future: But my acute Adversary takes it as if I expected the selfsame 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 believing jews 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 tells his Adversary 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 jews which believed (if 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 jews 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 jurisdiction might not pass; or, why they should be so partial 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 jewish converts under S. Paul should do in case they hap to take a toy against the Gentiles for eating a piece of Pork; Dr. H's grounds in this case interdicts them all Communion & conversation; According to his doctrine, S. Peter must have two altogether-unconnected Churches under him, a greater one of jews a lesser of Gentiles; and S. Paul, on the other side, a vast Church of Gentiles & a smaller kind of a Chapel of jews. And thus Dr. H's former agreeable discourse, neither agrees with any thing else nor itself neither; since, the same difficulty occurs here as if each Apostle had preached promiscuously & indifferently both to jews & Gentiles; since each must be over two Congregations if the jews happed to be too zealous for Moses his law, aswell as in the other case of preaching to both, which he so much striven to evade; & ●ould by no means admit.   

Sect. 21.  
How Dr. H. vindicates his Falsification of S. Ignatius by committing another. His formerly called Evidences denied now by himself to be proofs for the point; but, metamorphosed into Branches of Accordances, seasonable Advertissements and Fancies. The rare game in hunting a●●er his proofs, with the issue of that sport.  
SChism Disarmed p. 76. accused Dr. H of subjoyning out of his own head words most important & expressly testifying the point in hand, to a dry testimony of S. Ignatius. He qualifies the fault, too great to be acknowledged with what truth shall be examined. The place itself only 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. the other S. Peter's Deacon, both which afterwards succeeded them in the Episcopal Chair Linus being constituted Bishop of the Gentile, Clemens of the jewish 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 jewish 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 imagine was used here to make no distinction appear: as to tell us we read what followed there, & never telling us how far we read it; to jumble the two different letters confusedly together; and to put the words, Episcopal Chair, Bishop, Gentile, jewish 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 jewish Christians there, is no where else 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 shamelessly insincere as to put down such concerning expressions under the shadow of a testimony, and yet those expressions authorised by nothing but his own word, nor found any where but in his self-inuented additions.  
All these sleights discover plainly that there was artifice and design in the business; and that he slily abused his Reader, by putting a testimony, which signified nothing, for a cloak, and then adding what he pleased; hoping it might be countenanced by the grave Authority of Ignatius, and, by such a dexterous management, be taken for his, at least he hoped it might pass unsuspected by his confident asserting it; or, how ever, he hoped at least that for his last refuge he could evade by saying he meant it not for a proof, but in agreement only, or (as he 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 only over the jews. What could I expect other? our question is about the limitation of jurisdiction, what serve his testimonies for, or what do they there unless they can prove that? But he says 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 piece it out with other two places from Epiphanius & Pelagius the Archeretick, To omit that the testimony itself 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 only 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 Antiquity as yet for this point, but he falls from it when he should maintain it, & says 'tis no proof but only 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 says 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 promised us, but address ourselves for their quest. The fifth par. begins thus; And first it is evident by Scripture S. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision or jews exclusively to the Uncircumcision or Gentiles. Here we see 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, agreeable only as he there expresses it; and so, according to him, no proof. The rest are his own words only till we come at S. james, and the proofs following till we come to the end of the par. are not in order to the main point, but only to prove that james at Jerusalem was considered as a Bishop (which was out of question between us) as himself declares his own 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 only. Five testimonies follow par. 9 in order to those two Apostles planting the Church at Rome; which he expressly denies to be proofs of this our point Answ p. 49. l. 32. 33. and says they are spoken in agreement only, as also the next three which are found in the beginning of the tenth, though one of them be here called an Irrefragable Evidence. But let us pursve our game. These testimonies over past, the next from Scripture are introduced with Agreeable, and so are meant to be in agreement only and no proofs. The 11th par. begins with Accordingly again, which leads in the late-ill-treated testimony from Ignatius, denied here Answ. p. 53. to be a proof for the pretended point, and expressed to be only a branch of accordance lin. 26. The rest of the 11th par. is his own Scholion only, and pretends no proof. The two next paragraphs are nothing but his own words relating to the former only accordant no proofs; and so being merely corollary accordances or thin deductions from the other, can have no more force than their airy Parents. And if we look narrowly into them we shall find the whole strength of the one consists in the words [by all which it appears] to wit, by his branches of accordance, which, he confe●es, bear no fruit of proof: of the other in (It 〈◊〉 manifest.) The 14. & 15. par. are employed in showing S. john over the jews also, and not S. Peter over the jews only, and that Timothy was over Gentiles, but not a word that he was over Gentiles only there found. In the 16 par. he huddles together a company of his own demands; which, I conceive, are not things like proofs. Though I confess 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 Disarmed 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] etc. The 19th begins with his own suppositiou; and is prosecuted with the old Accordingly, which halesin by the arm another branch of accordance from S. Prosper, which ends all that particular Controversy; the next par. that is the 20th beginning a new business; that is, the donation of the Keys. All the testimonies then hitherto related are accordances only, 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 only 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 only 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 only proof he stands to for this point, which therefore we have purposely reserved till the last. We find it in the beginning of parag. 7. of Schism, slightly touched at thus. So again for the Uncircumcision or Gentle Christians they were not S. Peter's Province, but peculiarly Paul's, by S. Peter's own confession & acknowledgement Gal. 2. 7. Expect Reader that this only proof of Dr. H's shall come of well & be express for the point in question, how ever his branches of accordances have sped.  
To do him right I will put down this 7th v. as I find it in their own translation; But chose when they saw that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter. Where (and the same may be said of the following verses) first, there is nothing at all expressing jurisdiction which is our question, but only of preaching the Gospel to them, that is of converting them; which himself acknowledged to be nothing to the matter of jurisdiction. Answ. p. 51. l. 25. 26. Secondly, there is nothing there expressed of any exclusive power of preaching to jews only, as he expressly 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 & acknowledgement of any thing, as he in his only proof in big terms pretends & quotes for it immediately Gal. 2. 7. unless he contend that the words (they saw) signify they confessed & 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 find 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 only for S. I●mes his being named before S. Peter p. 72. l. 10. And besides, the same exceptions of insufficiency now made against this, are equally made against the other. Sixthly, his According●ies begin to come in play p 74. l. 4. a little after his citation of this verse, which manifests this to have been the place pretended for his only 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 showed them express; or else, if they were not, make his deductions from them: what does this acute-sincere man; he omits wholly the words; gravely and slightly touches the false sense he hath given, them; puts down his own tenet, subjoins to it the words [S. Peter's own confession and acknowledgement] pretends them to be Scripture; & immediately citys the place, where no such words were found. Was ever such a weak Soul put into a body; and yet this is the man cried up for the best of the Protestant Controvertists.  
Thus ends the slender-sented pursuit of Dr. H's proofs for this main fundamental point of his, that S. Peter was not over the Gentiles. The result of which is, that all the Testimonies he alleged for it are no proofs but dwindling accordances only; and his only proof Gal. 2. both impertinent & falsified. So rotten are all Dr. H's branches of accordances and also the sapless tree itself, 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 'tis a seasonable advertissement; the other, that 'tis a fancy (as he writes it) And says that he who likes not the fancy 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 reconciled, or that the repugnant sides must necessarily both be true; Wherefore, let him but first evidence that either part of that never-as yet-reconciled repugnance is certainly true, & I will undertake to reconcile them better than Dr. H. hath done in making one over jews the other over Gentiles only. Although, if one side or both be false, I must confess it beyond my skill to reconcile truths with falsehoods, or falsehoods with one another. Moreover, Schism Disarm. p. 77. directed him expressly to some other ways 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 father's more solidly able to reconcile repugnances in Story near their days (were they reconcileable (than such a weak judgement, as Mr. H's so long after.   

Sect. 22.  
Dr. H. affected ignorance of the Pope's Authority which he impugns, framing his Objections against an immediate Governor, not a mediate or Superior. His pretended infallibility in proving S. john higher in dignity of place than S. Peter. His special gift also in explicating Parables, and placing the sa●nts in Abraham's bosom.  
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 only under S. john. I answered (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 amiss; nor shall he truly if I can give him any just satisfaction. I desire to gain & keep every man's good will, though I will not court it by the least compliance nor kindness to the detriment of Truth.  
Bear in memory Reader this positively absolute t●●sts of his, that S. Peter had nothing to do either mediately or immediately, etc. 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 only that he governed them not immediately (which is nothing to our question) than I give thee leave to account me an Artificer or what thou wilt: but if thou findest not a word to that purpose, do thyself 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 lot. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he administered the Churches there. Now, in these three testimonies we find only that S. john 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 lot or Bishopric, to wit that of Ephesus, which signifies no more but that he was a particular Governor there; that he administered the Churches there; all which is competent to every Metropolitan in God's Church, whom yet we see daily with our eyes to be under an higher Ecclesiastical Governor, and consequently his Churches under him are under the same Governor mediately, although immediately under the inferior only. His fourth testimony is a flat & wilful falsification; 'Tis taken from S. Prosper, & put down by him thus, joannes apud Ephesum Ecclesiam sacravit, john at Ephesus consecrated a Church. Whereas the place itself is Gentium Ecclesiam sacravit, consecrated the Church of the Gentiles. Now because all over this par. 'tis Dr. H's pretence that S. john was at Ephesus over jews only, and the word Gentium would by no means be won to signify that, nor yet would the word [Nations] (as he rendered it before) any way serve to signify only jews, he prudently maimed the testimony, & left out the malignant word Gentium, because it could by no art be brought to favour, but utterly defied & contradicted his party. A politic Divine! yet as long as this rare craft's 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. An whole entire Nation, that of Asia, was entrusted to him. Now S. W. imagining that an whole entire Nation could not signify Gentiles only, or a part of that Nation, called it an unpardonable blindness to allege this testimony for a tenet quite contrary to what it expressed; But I am suddenly struck blind myself and caught that disease only by seeing Dr. H's blindness. 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. john & S. Paul, and after he had treated of S. john 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 chrysostom, he must be blind who could think this testimony was not meant of S. Paul. Add that the testimony itself speaks not of constituting a Bishop, & so gave me no occasion to imagine it related to Timothy's being thus constituted; and besides, the words (throughout all Asia) which he joins 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 only over Gentiles there, for which it was produced. My second blindness is that I could not see the obvious Answer, which is that S. chrysostom puts it only 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 'tis 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 says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not set to denote all the several sorts of caetus in Asia; I ask, do●s it exclude any, or is it set in opposition to the jews? if not, how can it possibly signify the Gentile part only, for which he produced it? my blindness 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) signify one sort of people living there or part of that Nation only.  
In order to these late testimonies it is to be observed, first, that our tenet makes the Pope over the whole Church in this sense (not that he governs each particular Church immediately but) that he is chief in Authority & over those inferior Bishops, Metropolitans, etc. who are the immediate Governors of those particular Churches, and so he becomes mediately in this sense 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 than another, but that he had an higher Authority than the other, each of which could preach in any or all places of the world▪ and that when he was fixed Bishop, he had an influence of Authority over any other Apostles when they were fixed Bishops in other places, not that he was immediate Bishop or Metropolitan of their particular Bishoprics.  
Thirdly, hence is evident that the proofs which can prejudice this point must signify that those particular Apostles, Metropolitans, or Bishops, had none superior to themselves, and by consequence who were mediately 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 jurisdictions immediately: no more than if some writer 500 years hence should argue that the Pope was not in the year 1650. Supreme Governor in our Church, because he finds at that time such a one Primate in France, & another Archbishop of Toledo in Spain.  
Fourthly, it is no less 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 expressed only that those Churches, or that country were under those Apostles or Bishops, without a Syllable signifying that those Apostles themselves were not under an higher Apostle, and so their Churches mediately subject to him; it is evident, I say, that he hath not produced a word to prove his position except his own, It is manifest; and consequently it was no artificial trick, but plain downright natural Truth to challenge him with that palpable weakness.  
Fiftly, his whole process is in another respect totally impertinent & frivolous. His fundamental intent was to limit the jurisdictions of the Apostles, as such; & to make them mutually-exclusive under that notion, by giving to each proper Apostolical Provinces; and here, proceeding to make good that his intent, he proves them limited as they were Bishops; which is a quite different thing. For every Bishop, as such, is over his own peculiar flock and particularised to it; where as that of an Apostle; being not a settled Authority as the other, hath not in its 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. avoyds the whole question of the mediate Government of S. Peter, which is the point his Adversary holds, and disproves the immediate only which we 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 touched the difficulty at all.  
But I had forgot the beginning of his 14. par. that S. john had the dignity of place before all other in Christ's life time, even before S. Peter himself. Now I went about to parallel it by the proportion an elder Brother hath to a younger, which is a precedence without jurisdiction, & 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, adds to it excellency of power of his own head which was never named nor insisted on by me, and when he hath done says that 'tis an addition of my fertile fancy; whereas I never pretended it as his words but my parallel; nor yet put force in the superiority of jurisdiction, but in that of a dry precedency only: 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 mentioned two things of john. 1. of Christ's favour to him, and this (he says) is infallibly inferred from the title of beloved Disciple. I stand not upon the thing, both because 'tis unconcerning our question, & true in itself; only 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 only affirms that it is not strongly probable his Church will err, 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. John's dignity of place before all others, which (he says) 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. john thus leaned on Christ's breast more than once: nor can we imagine 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 even at meat, Luke 22. v. 26. 27. L●● him that is greatest 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 express 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 only amongst the Apostles without jurisdiction, which consequently could be nothing but a dry complementary precedency to walk, stand, or speak first, etc. for no greater Primacy can be imagined, nor in higher matters, if we abstract (as he does) from jurisdiction. Again, his doctrine is likewise that S. john 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. john too in standing or walking A rare doctor! 'Tis a wonder that he gave not judas also a kind 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 than the dipping in the dish was, for any thing we read, both were equally accidental, for any thing we know (for we find it no where expressed that our Saviour placed him or he himself there by design,) And in this the dipping argues more dignity than the sitting, in that the sitting was only next our Saviour, but the dipping was at the same time: which would have grounded an infal ible and irrefragable inference for Dr. H. that judas had an absolute Primacy, and have served him rarely to over throw S. Peter's, had it not happed that judas was in other respects malignant, and so it was not the Drs interest to own the argument. But Dr. H. proceeds. And accordingly it avoidable follous that Lazarus, being represented parabolically in Abraham's bosom, is there described to be in the next place to the father of the faithful, 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 Logic of this man. My scruples or objections were Schism Disarm. p. 79. that if being in Abraham's bosom were being in dignity of place next to the father of the faith full, it followed that Lazarus was a 'bove all the Patriarches and Prophets except Abraham: As also, that none was in Abraham's bosom except Lazarus only, since there could be no more Nexts but one. Instead of answering he repeats what he had said before; only he adds fine words to amuse his Readers (whom he supposes must be fools) as Accordingly, avoidable, Parabolitically, it being certain, I presume we may believe Christ, etc. gently, 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 Patriarches & Prophets except Abraham, truth would answer us that Christ never said any such thing, but one Dr. H. who, like a more modest kind 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 faithful were in the bosom 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 nonsense deserves) for Infallible, irrefragable, according, unavoidable, parabolical, Christ-pretending, all-scruples invalidating Dr. H.   

Sect. 23.  
Dr. H's Falsification of Falsifications, and with what multitudes of weaknesses he attempts to take up the business.  
IN his book of Schism c. 4. par. 16. Dr. H. demanded very confidently of the Romanists Peter's universal 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, imagined 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 only positive words in the whole paragraph all the rest being interrogatories only, as also because I could not guess what they did there else, unless 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 less impertinent, unworthy his method of arguing.  
He pretends to have meant nothing by those words save only that those seven were considerable parts of the universal Church, as if Christ wrote Epistles to Churches, not because they stood need, but because they were big ones. But let them be considerable, what then: he says Answ. p. 57 there is no pretence that S. Peter should be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to feed or to govern, or so much as to have meddled 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, governed, or administered those as their particular & immediate Overseer, yet we make account that our Saviour said thrice to S. Peter, Feed my Sheep. john. 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 Christ's sheep aswell as the rest. How this commission to S. Peter to feed Christ's 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 limiting expressions, as, were it charged with Truth, would quite have battered down the walls of Rome. It needs no more but repeating to show it notorious; 'Tis 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 only to himself when he shall come to him, 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Here, Reader, thou seest terms most restrictive of jurisdiction, & so most nay solely-important to the question; no other Apostle, could countermand, etc. no other Appeal, no farther directions, only to himself, etc. Thou seest, I say, these; and thou seest likewise the place of Scripture quoted immediately for all these. Now, Schism Disarmed p. 81. showed from their own translation that there was not one word of this long rabble in the place alleged, but the bare, barren & useless 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 its most shame full nakedness? 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 bade 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, etc. 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 expressed like an inference or conclusion; doth not S. Paul, etc. 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 & useless word common to it & the premises.  
Secondly, he tells us, that to say that he inferred 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 mentioned the former long rabble, he told us in express terms that 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 alleges that he thought his grounds had been visible enough being thus laid; and then proceeds to lay them. But the jest is he never laid 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 kind 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, etc. 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, only to himself, which were objected, & so it belonged to him if he could not show them expressed there & so clear his falsified citation, at least to show them concluded & deduced thence, as 6. or 7. lines before he had promised 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 only to himself. I answer, does the place alleged 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 sense either there in express terms, or else by framing your conclusion from it? why do you instead of thus doing your duty, stand ask 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 ask this question over again to the showing that the contrary was either expressly 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 delayed 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 be falsified in the express terms, he pretends to conclude thence; and when 'tis shown unable to conclude any thing, instead of proceeding to make it good or show that conclusible 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 gravelled 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 concerning the good of the universal Church. 'Tis my express tenet, which he is at present impugning; and which I both do affirm & dare maintain (so prevalent is Truth) against Dr H. though backed by forty more learned than himself. But this politic Adversary of mine, seeing he could not argue me out of my faith, would needs fright me or persuade me from it, threatening me first that I dare not; next, assuring me that I do not affirm i●. This solid discourse premised, he shuts up with an acclamation of victory thus: 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 Authority to all the rest of the Apostles.  
Thus Dr. Hr. toys it with his Readers, hoping that the greater part of them will be arrant fools. First, putting down a company of expressions totally disannulling 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 than the poor monosyllable Come, saying, he only meant it was conclusible or deducible thence. And lastly, instead of concluding, proving, or deducing that jurisdiction limiting sense from those words, which at least was necessary, only saying the same words over again, ask 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 loss 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 fundamental Exception against the Pope's Authority, from the pretended equal donation of the Keys to S. Peter.  

Sect. 1.  
How Dr. H's Shuflingly avoids either to acknowledge or disacknowledge the notion of an Evidence given. What he means by his Evidences; and what is to be expected from Catholics in managing a Wit-controversy concerning Scripture. His weak attempt to clear himself of Prevarication, Injuriousnes and Calumny objected.  
MY 13. Section in Schism Disarmed 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 originized 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, unless moved by the said light of evident & demonstrative Reasons; that is, unless 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 only.  
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 Controversy; and how great a kindness he had conferred on S. W to have answered positively to these two points I or no, to wit whether less than such a rigorous Evidence could justify 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 find a decisive conclusion, if these points were positively answered to, & vigorously pursued. Now, my notion of a Testimony Evidence (Schism Disarm. p. 88) was this, that the testimony itself must be authentic beyond dispute; and the words alleged 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 express 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 resolved we 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 only that it may be; which being too weak a ground in the judgement 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 denied the notion given, or pretended that less Evidence would serve in a Controversy about Schism: nor durst he be 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 kind 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 only that his Affirmative or Negative may be; or whether these Testimonies need be proofs at all, but branches of accordance only, 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 only; nor do his words here exact more than only 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; express or dumb; entire, or maimed with an Ellipsis; originally proving, o● agreeable only; 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-styled Evidences; and so, vulgar & half-witted Souls will rely upon them in a Controversy importing no less than their eternal Salvation.  
In the same place of Schism Disarmed Dr. H. was charged 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 show that those places have no such force in them. Observe these canting words [the one possible way] so handsomely preparing for an evasion, which though more likely to signify the only possible way (as Vnus is often taken for Solus in Latin) yet he hath a gloss in readiness 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? We were taught in Logic to prove Negatives by concluding in Celarent or Ferio, without being forced necessarily to stand answering the arguments in Barbara and Darij for the Affirmative: whereas, according to Dr. H's new Logic, the only way to prove a Negative point must be to solve the Affirmative proofs. To omit that it shall be shown presently how the solving Affirmatives, was no one way to testify a Negative.  
Again, he was shown by Schism Disarmed 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 its force, nor doth it proceed so far as to prove or infer that the thing in itself is untrue. Indeed, if it be known first that the Opponent holds his tenet upon no other Grounds save only that testimony, and that be shown plainly to be unable 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 less 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 tenor 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, than 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 weakness of this Drs discursive faculty. 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 sense he impugns them, but only as they are explicable by universal Tradition, our Rule of faith. Since than Dr. H. not so much as pretends to solve them according to the sense which Tradition gives them (for he no where pretends to show that the attestation & practice of immediate forefathers did not ever give them this sense) 'tis evident he hath not in this process impugned our faith at all, seeing he impugns no tenor 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, universal Tradition, fall to interpret Scripture with them proceeding upon other Grounds, to wit, upon private skill & learning, to show our advantage over them in their own, and to them the only way. If then Mr. H. pretended only 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 expressed it; But, if he say he meant to impugn our faith, or build his own, he can never pretend it, unless he solve, or impugn those Grounds upon which we build our faith. Make account then, Reader, that that which Dr. H. and I are now about is nothing at all to faith, but only 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 Grammatical & Critical quibbling move more dexterously & smartly towards the end we drive at; and is all one as if Lawyers should consent to abstract from custom & knowledge of Ancestors, and the books of the known laws, (as I do now from Practice & Tradition, the sole true Foundation of faith,) and dispute out of some pliable, or obscure passages in odd histories, and some letters written only upon occasion, as Gildas, & some such few remnants of that time in the Reign of the Britain's, 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 show them evidently concluding for us, as thus explicated; no more than it doth to divines to demonstrate mysteries of faith by reason, which depend upon another ground, to wit, Authority. We acquit ourselves well if we show 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 we do more than the necessity of our cause, or reason obligeth us to, if we show 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 Catholics go about to prove their faith from Scripture as explicable by Tradition, it belongs to them to show 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 sum of his first proofs, and yet omitting our chiefest place of all. Io. 21. 15. 16 17. Dr. H. replies (Answ. p. 59) this is just as Doctor Stapleton deals 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 called a Text of Scripture the most important place, because it was not mentioned, So says Mr. Calvin's friend, Dr. H if we will believe him; but, till he proves it better than by only saying it, we shall take liberty to think that friendship blinds. Next, he tells us he hath given some account Rep. Sect. 8. n. 10. why he had done us no injury in omitting it; and indeed, 'tis only some account; for he tells us there slightly 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 saying, Simon Son of jonas lovest 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 rendered 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 rendered p. 93. from his full persuasion that it had so very little appearance of Strength in it, and had been so often answered that it would not be deemed useful to any that he should descend to it. Let us examine a little Dr. H's perfect truth. I ask, had he reckoned all the numerous places in Controvertists where this & other texts had been answeted, & found that this had been far ofter replied to? if he did not, how can he affirm it, or allege this for his excuse? if he did) which I confess 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 urged? till which time, he gives us leave to believe 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 oftener answered, it was oftener urged; and that it had not been oftener urged without having some more appearance of truth in it, than the rest, which yet the other part of his excuse denies. If he say, that it was urged more prevalently; still, it will lie at his door 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 oftener, which on the one side had very little appearance of truth in it, and on the other side had been neither very often, nor very prevalently urged. Fourthly, he asks if there be any farther invisible reserve in that place not taken notice of by Mr Hart in the conference with Dr. Reynolds, I answer; truly, I was not by; nor shall I credit a relation which their own partial Scribes writ, & their own partial 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, than 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 we will believe his enemies, was put to conclude in these words. Peter's Supremacy. Words so sillily unlikely, that the very rehearsal of them is enough to disgrace the whole relation, and the allegers themselves. Nor is it less unlikely that M▪ Hart should fly from this place of S. john to that of Luke 22. v. 31. to prove S. Peter's Supremacy; where nothing is found but only 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 unauthorised & 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 business to give his reader a memorandum of a thing which he can never make good; and is in itself the most unlikely truth and the likeliest fiction that can be imagined.  
Thirdly Dr. H. was charged of manifestly calumniating the Catholics in calling their tenet concerning the power of the Keys a peculiarity & enclosure of S. Peter He goes about to discharge his credit and Conscience by showing both from my words and the Catholic tenet that S. Peter had some particular power of Keys, & says he meant only that this particular power was a peculiarity & enclosure of S. Peter. That the Catholic tenet, & consequently mine is that he had such a particular degree of power of the Keys promised, and given him, I willingly gra●● and, had Dr. H. expressed so much there, he had not been charged with Calumny; but if he expressed no such thing there, nay carried it so, as if we had held that no Apostles had the Keys but S. Peter, than all the empty wordishnes in his Reply & Answer will avail nothing to clear him from so gross 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 Keys in an unlimited & universal 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 Keys 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 Keys, etc. and then subjoins these words. Peter's, these considerations will be of force to supersede his conclusion. Now, what this Donative and power was meant of, is sufficiently expressed before, to wit the power of the Keys in general without any restriction or particularization. Wherefore, it is most manifest from his own words that he would have made the honest Reader believe our tenet was that the power of the Keys in general & common was S. Peter's peculiarity & enclosure. Secondly, one of his considerations to supersede our conclusion (as he calls it) were two places of Scripture, expressing only that the Keys were given to all the Apostles in common, but nothing at all that they were given equally to all; wherefore they can no ways impugn the inequality of S. Peter's having such a power, but only S. Peter's having it alone; since nothing can be imagined plainer than that the same Notion of a thing may plurally agree to many, and yet in unequal 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 Keys alone, and so calumniated us in counterfeiting that to be our tenet, & impugning it as such, unless perhaps he will say he intended 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 Keys (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 believe that we held such an absurd Position, and thence erected a rare Trophy of his own Victory, by showing (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 showing from his own words that he signified that which we held for S. Peter's peculiarity & enclosure was only a higher degree of that power, which had been the proper way to show him not faulty in the said words, he prevaricates quite from that only necessary method, and runs to show from my words & the Catholic tenet that we grant S. Peter a more particular power of the Keys; entangling poor S. W. on all sides p 61. and obliging him by most powerful arguments to grant that which he believes already as a point of his faith; and, when he hath done, he insults that that particular power was S. Peter's peculiarity, & enclosure; but never goes about to show (which only was his duty) that he applied those words peculiarity & enclosure to that particular power of the Keys in his book of Schism, where he was charged to have calumniated us but to the common power only. Though the question be not whether Catholics hold that S. Peter had an higher degree of this power, which was his enclosure, 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 Keys itself was held by us to be his enclosure, & 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 ask the reader what trust is to be given to such disputers. But what said the two appearances of the same Romanist? one appearance says that Dr. H. affirms no power of the Keys was given especially to S. Peter. The other appearance says that he confesses the Keys 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 Schism p. 87. l. 2. 3. where he says expressly, that these, to wit, the Keys, or the words importing them, are delivered in common and equally to all & every of the eleven Apostles. Now I imagined that those words equally to all & every one is the very same, as particularly to no one. But Dr. H. thinks otherwise. (Answ. p. 62. l. 18 denying that he affirmed no power of the Keys was given especially to S. Peter. And yet presently l. 21. 22. Saying that he affirmed that the power was given in common, and equally to all the Apostles, which is so perfectly the selfsame 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 Keys was given especially to S. Peter, is his own main nay sole tenet, he is defending in this place, which yet he says 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 says that the words importing a promise of the Keys are applied particularly to S. Peter, Now the applying those words is the speaking them, for they were not first spoken then afterward applied. 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 only mentioned by him as a colour the Romanist makes some use of, it hath no colour at all from the place where it is found, or at least such a dim colour as none but himself can discern.   

Sect. 2.  
A Promise of an higher degree of power and its performance shown the Texts Mat. 16. and john 21. connaturally and rationally explicated.  
THese preparative rubs being passed 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 itself, since Dr. H. will needs put us upon the part of the Opponent.  
Mr. H. undertook 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 Keys 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 & tenor in which he promised, consequently he performed that promise to S. Peter after a particular manner, that is, gave him the Keys particularly, Schism Disarmed p. 90. 91. urged the first place Matth. 16. v. 19 etc. 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 attendance in order to answering it but only p. 60. 61. 62. he would needs engage me thence to confess 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 than I must be forced to repeat again what I said there, I shall do it by arguing after this sort.  
These words, I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. 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 particularising 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 compatible nor common to the rest of the Apostles; therefore they were spoken to S. Peter after a particularising way. The consequence is most evident, since particular, is expressly the same with not common or not compatible to the rest. The Antecedent is proved no less 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 avoid all equivocation which might communicate that name▪ designing whose son he was, Simon Bar-Iona: my heavenly father hath revealed it unto th●e, in particular. Next follows Christ's applying his words in particular here upon, And I say unto 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, etc. And after all these particular designations follows the promise in the same tenor copulatively. And I will give unto thee (still with the same speciality) the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Now, hence jargue. 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 compatible 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 compatible to the rest of the Apostles. But (to return whence we came) these words are a promise of the Keys, and their power; therefore a promise of the Keys, 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, we argue thus. It is worthy our Saviour, not only to perform his promise, but also to perform it after the manner, and tenor he promised. But he promised the power of the Keys to S. Peter after a particular manner, (as hath been shown) ●●erefore he performed his promise, and gave it to S. Peter after a particular manner, and consequently (which is the position we ultimately aim at) S. Peter had the power of the Keys 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 than common, and, when it comes to the point, to have his hopes defeated by a common, and merely- equal 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 Protestant, make choice particularly of that place of john 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 registered in Scripture (as hath been shown) it is fitting that the correspondent performance so worthy our Saviour should be expressed 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 ye the Holy Ghost, & ●s my father sent me so send I you, express only a common performance) therefore in all reason we should think that the particular performance is expressed there. The second I show thus, the particular promise had preceded, apt in its own Nature to breed some greater expectation in S. Peter. These words were apt to satisfy that expectation; they signified therefore a particular performance▪ Again, the thrice particularising him by his name, and relation, Simon son of jonas, 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 Pastor in these words. The Major is evident, 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 himself sufficiently Authorized to perform that duty. Thirdly, the word amas me plus his, Dost thou 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 thou love me more than these, to which S. Peter assenting, our Saviour may be imagined by the natural sense of the words to reply, If it be so that thou lovest me more than these, then feed my Sheep more than these; or, have thou a Commission to feed my Sheep more than these, sense 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 themselves 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 particularising, and perferring words [more than these] put there if they had no correspondent influence nor connexion with the inference which ensves upon it. Fourthly, the verb pasce being expressed imperatively, and spoken by a lord to his servant, aught in all reason to signify a Command, unless the concomitant words in the Text force another sense upon it, which cannot be alleged here. Since then every command of a lawful Superior 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 predicate 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 City because he could be but a particular Pastor: But, S. Peter having for his charge, oves & Agnos, that is, all the faithful, ●ould ●ever be out of his own jurisdiction, so that being still in his seat, he needed not fix any where; and, that he did so was 〈◊〉 abundanti; Wherefore Predicate being spoken in general to all he Apostles▪ pasce, to S. Peter only, & pasce having an especial force above Predicate 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 acknowledged words of the Texts, as managed by Grammatical 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 so far, assuring me how seldom demonstrations are to be expected from the tossing of mere words; My only intent then (as I told thee at first) was to show what I conceived most connaturally and probably followed out of these Texts, and their circumstances. Nor is it sufficient for mine Adversary to imagine 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 particularising 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 itself then mine is, nay from any other Text in Scripture, to show that S. Peter had no promise of the power of the Keys 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 confess myself to have the worst in this wit-combat, and shall lay down the cudgels for the next comer.   

Sect. 3.  
Dr. H's solutions or contrary explications of those two places of Scripture, sustained by most senseless paralogisms, and built only upon his own sayings; nor shown nor attempted to be 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 connatural explication, which is the only method to show his advantage over us in Scripture; but, in stead thereof, endeavours only to enervate our deductions thence by some solutions gathered here and there. Now, this method of proceeding had been allowable, in case we had built our faith upon such wit originized explications; or, if in trying our acuteness with them in their own wordish way we had pretended to evidence or conclude demonstratively that this must be the sense of those places; for then indeed any may be otherwise, which they could imagine, would have destroyed our must be so; and we were bound in that case to maintain our explication against any other, not only which the words might be pretended to favour, but what the most voluntary dreamer could fancy. But, since we pretend not to evidence or conclude demonstratively thence, and only intend to show out of the force of the words that our exposition is more probable, and connatural; he hath no way to overcome in these circumstances, but by showing us another out of the force of the same words more probable and connatural; which since he never attempts to do (as far as I can see) 'tis plain he is so far from having acquitted himself 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 own facy without endeavouring to show them more natural out of the force of the Texts, are so little to the purpose, that they are not worth answering. Yet we shall glean them up from the places in which he hath scattered them, and give them, which is more than 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 Keys; 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 we have a place of Scripture expressing a promise of the Keys 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 plural 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 piece of bedlam like nonsense that I wonder the silliest old wife should be gulled with such an affected piece of foolery. Paul's, and Pancras by this Logic must be equal, because they are both in the plural called Churches; nay every piece of the world's frame is a manifest instance against this paralogism; since in every species in Nature the particulars or individuals are plurally styled by the same word, and agree in the same general notion, though there be hundreds, sometimes thousand degrees of inequality between them. Yet this infinitely weak reasoner hath (as I dare undertake to show) above forty times made this argument against us; and to surpass his otherwise unparaleld'self, he calls it an evidence. Were it not pretty to put some parallels to this piece of Logic, and make Dr. H. argue thus. Constables and Kings are in the plural styled Magistrates. ergo (cries the Dr.) it is evident they are both equal; A Captain and a General 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, etc. because all of each sort were named by one plural name. Pardon me then Reader if I have given such a harsh character to this monstrous piece of Logic I profess 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 own behalf that he hath by his passion, and interest so totally defaced it in himself 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 than sacrilege, or idolatry, would persuade rational Souls into it by such putid nonsense, I confess, I cannot contain my expressions from taking such liberties, as truth and justice make lawful, but the concernment 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 less singularizing each of them distinctly as you here pretend but a common and plural donation only whatsoever you shall bind, etc. and, as for your Syllogism by which you would evade the shamelessness of this assertion Answ. p. 66. by saying that you meant only the Apostles were each of them singly to have and exercise the power of the Keys, and not all together in common, or joined 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 common expression whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, etc. without any distinction at all expressed. Nor can such a pretended meaning stand with common sense, unless the Dr. will confess himself 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 only (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 lose, but all of them together in common only 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 Keys being S. Peter's enclosure. Yet it is as necessarily his, as the excuse given is his; which if he disclaim he acknowledges the objected fault.  
Solution 4. The addressing the speech to S. Peter in the singular is a token only 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 only your own saying; show us out of the words themselves that this is more probable, as I showed the contrary, and then I shall acknowledge that you have animated the dead letter more artificially than 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 only said again, not shown that the words gave occasion to say it, which was only to be done. He quotes indeed drily the places of Scripture, yet puts down no words, as his custom is, but talks before and after the barren and unapplyed citations what he pleases. We 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 power is more probable out of their native force. Let him do the like and show by the same method his explication more connatural than mine and I shall grant he won the field in this probability-skirmish. Himself will not deny that S. Peter had as much promised him as the rest when it was promised in common, Math. 18. v. 18. The having then over and above this common promise at another distinct time and with most particularising and distinguishing circumstances a promise of he same Keys; most manifestly is a privilege peculiar to S. Peter, and that on which we ground the probability of having them promised in a particular manner, and consequently performed in the same sort; which we make account we find with the like particularities Io. 21. Let the Reader then observe what countenance the words, Grammatically & prudentially scanned, give to our explications and deductions, and expect what other explication, so well circumstanced, Dr. H. can deduce of the same words taken in their own native force and energy, not what he will say upon his own head.  
Solution 7. The special energy of the applying the words particularly to S. Peter, concludes that the Ecclesiastical power of aeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house belongs to single persons, such as S. Peter was, and not only to Consistories, or Assemblies. Of Schism p. 87. Reply. This is still your own saying without ever endeavouring to show from the words, and their circumstances, they persuade that this is the sense of them. But, let it be so that you have evinced against the Presbyterians from this place that a community must not govern but a Bishop, that is, one who is Superior 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 particularising words were spoken, whence Dr. H. proves the Episcopal Authority over the consistory) than it will follow that in succeeding times, and distinct circumstances, some one should be chief and over the Assembly. Again, the words not being express for his position, he can only make a parallel 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 equal in Authority, as the Apostles were; that is, there ought to be no more-highly-authorized Bishop over them, but only that one of those equally-dignifyed 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 loan 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 do if they assent to what the Protestants say upon a probability only, nay a totally improbable, and rather opposite Text. Nor should I wish them so much hurt, as to believe Episcopacy, unless I made account the Catholic Church was able to give them rigorously convincing evidence for her Authority asserting it, which is impossible the Protestants should do, unless they plow with our heifer, and recur to our Rules of faith, universal Tradition, so oft renounced 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 t'him self, Schism Disarmed p. 95. In reply to which dangerous point (Answ. p. 66▪ par. 16.) he only 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 difficulty in it and so ends. As if my showing that our tenet follows more naturally out of the words, even as explicated thus by himself, were only an expression of dislike, impertinent to our question, or had not, if proved, any show of the least difficulty in it; yet he brags 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 exhortation 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 particularising 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, Go teach all Nations, were? how then appears it from the words that this was only an exortation? and, if it does not, what is it more than Dr. H's own saying?  
Solution 9 The circumstances in the Text can never work a change in the matter, an inculcated, express, particularised explication, introduced with a question to quicken, and impress 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 only an Exhortation; else all this and your following discourse falls to the ground. Next, such particularising circumstances to S. Peter in the presence of the rest are apt in their own nature to make him or any man living ready to apprehend that the thing promised belonged to him in a particular manner: else to what end served 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 itself to signify a Commission; the accumulation of particularising circumstances gave it to signify a particular Commission. Let the reader examine Dr. H. by what force of the words he proves 'tis an exhortation only, since the words themselves are words of Commission, there being nothing proper to a mere exhortation in them. And as for the Drs parallel here that (Christ's praying the same prayer thrice did not make it cease to be a prayer and commence a precept, 't's so silly as a sillier cannot be imagined; 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 prayed, as he could upon S. Peter, not last is it only the thrice saying that we build upon, as abstracted from all the other particularising circumstances but the thrice saying a precept, and a precept thus expressed.  
Solution 10. The ask 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 unto 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 bewrayed what kind of Spirit he is of; who makes account that the getting some great preferment is a ground of more gladness than our Saviour's 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 confess Dr. H's No doubt, and Sure, upon which all depends, are two sure cards, were they authorised by any thing besides his own words; and, 'tis a very competent answer with him to say he is sure, and there is no doubt but that S. Peter gaped so much after a preferment that he cared not, in comparison of it, what opinion his B. Master had of him, in order to his loving him.  
Again, how do the words so put it beyond all doubt that the ask him thrice, lovest thou me, was deemed by S. Peter a reproach of his thrice denial; whereas the Text tells us that S. Peter was fully persuaded of his Master's knowledge of his love, and confidently appealed to that knowledge, Lord thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee. Nor have we any ground to think that S. Peter apprehended his sweet Master so cruel 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 flock, the words indeed give countenance to it. But than it should be asked what necessity was there of exciting a greater care in S. Peter in particular? had he shown himself of so 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 imagine▪ The force therefore in this thrice repetition of lovest thou me in all probability and according to the words rationally explicated, we make to be 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 itself, and the best disposition to perform any charge with exact diligence is a greater affection towards the person who imposes it, our Saviour, by ask S. Pe●ter thrice in that tender manner lovest thou me more than 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 mind him for the future upon what terms and conditions, and with what dear and tender expressions he had pledged unto him the care of his flock. This explication, I say, of that thrice ask we think most connatural and consonant to the Text, as rationally scanned according to what is most befitting the divine wisdom; by which rule or any other principle had Dr. H. guided himself in stead of recurring to and relying upon merely his own fancy for his voluntary explications, I hope he would have been of the same mind too.  
Solution 11. We need seek no other performance of this promise than that which was at once afforded all the Apostles together. As, suppose a General should promise a Commission this day to one, and to morrow 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 special performance of it Reply p. 67. Reply: Dr. H. pretends a parallel, and yet▪ leaves all that in which the force of the parallel was to be put, taking the common and indifferent circumstance only. First he puts the supposition that a General should promise a Commission this day to one, but he omits all that in which we place the strength of our argument, to wit, that the General should promise the said Commission to that one in a manner of expression not competent or compatible 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 General have promised a Commission to one in this manner, and then the answer had been, that that one man so manifoldly particularised, and, as it were, called and singled out from the rest in their own presence, had no reason to think himself ingenuously dealed 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 equal Commission only, 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 General 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 Keys, 'tis granted; but, if he mean's (as he ought, this being the thing in controversy, and the sense best suiting 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 expressed 〈◊〉 common only then 'tis palpably false and flatly denied. 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 only stood by at this time while it was promised to the other eleven. By which device he hath avoided another point in which we put force, and left it out in his parallel; and 'tis 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 preferred before them in this privilege, that, over and above his common promise, he had a promise made to him at other times particularly and in a particularising 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 only 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 unequal it would prove just contrary to his pretence. But what he mean's by his sealed Commissions, or how he thinks this is verified in the Apostles, we shall ere long discuss when he declares his meaning in it.  
Dr. H's parallel having thus lamely played its part, let me see if I can make another more pat, and express 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 we may suppose not to have been then acknowledged) he breaks out into those parallel expressions. Happy art thou N. N. who, when others weakly doubt of my Royalty dost out of a particular affection to me acknowledge me King; and I say unto thee, Thou art Bishop, and upon this Bishop I will build the Church of England, and thus built it shall stand strong against all opposition; and I will give unto thee the power of binding & losing and whatsoever fault against our Ecclesiastical laws, thou shalt absolve from, I will hold that person thus absolved guiltless; and whatsoever thou shalt refuse to pardon, I will hold it unpardoned likewise. Now I appeal to Dr. H's conscience 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 promised to make him, and the rest Bishops, yet there would not remain still imprinted in his mind an expectation that he should be a Bishop in a higher degree than the rest; to wit, an Archbishop of Canterbury or York? since I think it as plain in prudence that such a carriage, and such expressions should breed such an expectation, as most prudential actions use ordinarily to be. Therefore, it was worthy our Saviour not to delude the expectation of S. Peter justly, rationally and prudently raised by his particularising carriage, and expressions to higher hopes; Therefore, he satisfied it with a proportionable performance; therefore S. Peter had in higher manner and degree the power of the Keys than the rest of the Apostles, which is the thing to be evinced.  
And thus ends this wit-combat between me, and Dr. H. in which, I hope, I have performed fully my takes, which was to show out of the very words in the Text that they sound in all probability and likelihood more favourably to my advantage. And, if Dr. H. goes about to answer me, let him show out of those very words, prudentially scanned, that they persuade another interpretation, and not tell us of his own fancy what he is able to imagine, as he does here all over. Nor let him think 'tis 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 natured 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 confess 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 itself is very disallowable, and unreasonable; because a mere possibility of another, destroy's not the probability of this▪ only a greater, or equal probability pretended, can frustrate a greater probability presumed, where the Grounds of controverting exceed not probability. Andlastly, to think to prejudice our tenet or faith even by solving those places thus interpreted by privates skill, is the weakest error of all; since neither our faith nor myself as one of the faithful, rely at all upon any place of Scripture, as thus interpreted. This conceit therefore is no wiser than if a man should think to throw me down, or disable me from walking by taking away my stilts, and yet leaving me my legs 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 sense of the Church, so little upon places of Scripture played upon by wit, that what Dr. H. ob ects, and thinks me in chanted for holding it. (Answ. p. 64.) I freely, and ingenuously confess, 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 ascertained me that S. Peter was chief 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 comfort, and ornament to the Church, and very useful to our Doctors; yet not to hammer or coin a faith out of them by the dints and impressions of wit, as the Protestants imagine.   

Sect. 4.  
D Hs most wilful and grand Falsification in pretending an Author for him and concealing his words, found to be expressly & point blank against him. His unparallelled weakness in dogmatizing upon the mystical sense of another, which, almost in every point, contradicts his Doctrine.  
AFter Dr. H. had pretended (of Schism p. 88) that the power of the Keys was as distinctly promised 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 odd one Dr. H. Answ p. 67. refers us to his Reply c. 4. Sect. 10. and there, he says, the sense which S. W. never heard of, was vouched from S. Augustine. But, upon view of the place, I neither find a word of S. Augustine put down to vouch it; nor so much as a citation of any place in that father▪ where we may look it: only 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 we are not likely to find 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 find this vouching it from S. Augustine, he providently foresaw was likely to follow.  
By the same prudential method he govern's himself in the two other Testimonies he adds to that of S. Augustine, in these words; to whom I may also add 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 aldesigned omission. Not will Dr. H. suffer him to be deluded in that his expectation, being very apt to give his Readers satisfaction always in that point.  
Note, Reader, what is in question at this time. We interpret this place to relate to the day of judgement▪ 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 Episcopal chairs, 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. Matthew. the title of that particular Section is, De adventu filij hominis ad iudicium in maiestate sua, of the coming of the son of man to judgement in his majesty. 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 majesty, 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 expressly to the day of judgement as words can signify. But let us proceed to the Authors own words, upon which Dr. H builds. De iudicij tempore adventuque commemorat quo fidelis ab infidelibus separabit, atque ab infructuosis fructuosa discernet, hoedos, viz. ab agnis, & in dextrâ & sinistrâ collocans, unumquemque dignà aut bonitatis aut malitiae suae sede constituet. He speaks of the coming and time of judgement, in which he will separate the faithful from the infidels, discern the fruitful from the unfruitful, 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 goodness, or wickedness. And now I appeal to the judgement of the most partial 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 opposite to it, that 'tis impossible 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, etc. affords us first this comment; futurum autem erat ut in die iudicij responderent judaei, etc. It was to happen in the day of judgement that the jews would answer, Lord we did not know thee the Son of God when thou wast clad with thy body vos respondeb●tis, etc. ye shall answer; we also were men as you are, etc. Thus he literally. But, we will grant that this Author whoever he was (for he is not certainly known) more inclined to the mystical sense; and we pardon Dr. H. at present that extreme weakness of dogmatizing not upon the literal, but mystical sense of an interpreter, let us see whether (though in that one point of relating to the resurrection it be for him according to the said mystical sense yet whether) in all the rest it be not expressly against him, and absolutely inconsistent with his whole doctrine. His transition from the literal to the mystical sense is this. Adhuc autem audeo subtiliorem introducere sensum, & sententiam sapientis cuiusdam viri refer. But I dare be so bold as to introducere a more subtle sense, and relate the opinion of a certain wise man; that, as the people of the jews were divided into twelve tribes secundum quasdam proprietates animorum, & diversitates cordium, quas solus Deus disce●n●re & cognoscere potest; according to certain propenties of their minds, and diversities of their hearts, which only God can discern and know; that some should be, as it were, of the tribe of Reuben, others of the tribes of Simeon, Levi, or juda, etc. 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 mystical explication of the day of judgement, he hath these words; in sedem autem, etc. Christ begun to sit in the seat of his majesty ever since the Gentiles begun to believe in him; wherefore, since the time that Christ sit upon the seat of his majesty, 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 we have touched before-Omnis enim, etc. 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, etc. 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 jews. For when the words of the Apostles judge the jews, also the Apostles themselves seem to judge them. Hence.  
Note first that Dr. H. makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify an Episcopal chair, 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 Episcopal chairs of the Apostles, are, according to Mr. H's doctrine, twelve lesser Provinces, distinguished and appointed by Apostolical consent; whereas this Author makes them only, to be differenced by the diversity of their Spirits, and Souls.  
Note thirdly that if governing and presiding in twelve Episcopal chairs be signified here (as he pretends) it follows that the Apostles governed and presided over they knew not whom; for these twelve parts of Christianity (according to this Author) are distinguished secundum diversitates animorum, according to diversities of minds, quas solus Deus discernere & cognoscere potest, which only God can discern, and know; and this Author makes here the Apostles sitting upon twelve thrones, to be their sitting in all Christians according to this diversity of minds.  
Note fourthly, that he makes the Apostles sitting in them to be 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 jurisdiction.  
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 thought them their doctrine, and put their words in them, by which they were judged; not that they sit in Episcopal chairs, ruled, and presided, as Governor's 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 scanned, really and properly signify those things they mystical allude to; since ●he agreeing of them to this explication is that which sustains and countenances it: Seeing than it is a madness to pretend that a Christian soul is really, and properly, a throne of an Apostle, that those twelve parts of Christianist's whose distinction is unknown to the Apostles should be really and properly ●welve Provinces to be governed by their Episcopal 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 madness to pretend that the Apostles life time (and not the day of judgement) is signified here really and properly; since, the word itself not necessarily denoting it, this interpretation is only built upon the applicablenes of the circumstant expressions; which being all mystical, and improper, cannot make it proper and literal but mystical, and improper only.  
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 else dogmatise upon a mystical sense, and pretend 'tis meant really. Which method were it followed 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 real corn; preaching would be real sowing; men would be in reality mere vegetables; the good, wheat; by bad, tares; Heaven nothing in reality but a barn; the Angels would be really reapers, and sweaty tanned country-drudges, with sickles, rakes and forks in their hands preaching, loding into carts, driving home, and unloading into this barn men's Souls by Dr. H's learned Metamorphosis (far outvying Opid's) turned really into mere 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 madness that ever abused the world, by interpreting mystical things really; that is, by following Dr. H's method here; who, out of a place evidently mystical, and so expressed by the Author, deduces dogmatically as a real truth that the promise was made for twelve real, 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 look for the omitted place in S. Austin, I doubt not but we should find it of the same mystical strain in some Homily, or other: for he writ no comments upon S. Matthew (that I know of from whence we may certainly expect such a literal explication.   

Sect. 5.  
How Dr. H. goes about to prove the donation of equal power from the Descent of the Holy Ghost and from fathers, by an heap of weaknesses; contradiction of his own, calumnies of our tenet; forgeries of his Advers ary's sense 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 Episcopal thrones) was fina●ly performed in the descent of the Spirit. Act. 2. the fire that represented that Spirit was divided, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sat upon every one of them, without any peculiar mark allowed S. Peter, and they were all filled ' 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 know'st 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 allowed to S. Peter, and the having the Holy Ghost equally; neither of which are, or can be proved by any man living (for who can see man's heart, or know in what degree he hath the Holy Ghost, but God only? 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 be 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 we hold that each Apostle had the promise made, had a performance of that promise, that the fiery tongues sat on every of them, etc. 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 only that each Apostle had power in the Church, which we voluntarily grant.  
To answer these fantastic toys the better, I will take the whole piece a sunder into propositions, and impugn them singly.  
The first proposition is, that the promise of the twelve thrones of Episcopal presidency was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit. Observe, Reader, that our question is about Authority and jurisdiction (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 jurisdiction or Authority to the Apostles, but zeal, charity, knowledge, courage, vigour, strength, and such other gifts only. See the Scripture, Luke 24. 49. Tarry ye in Jerusalem until ye be endued, virtute ex alto, that is, with power, or powerfulness, efficaciously to prosecute what they were a ready designed and commissioated for; not, till you have finally Authority and jurisdiction 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 dreamed that they got by this means any Authority, or jurisdiction But to show the absurdity of this conceit there needs no more but to reflect upon the Drs words. He says that the promise of twelve thrones of presidency or ●●welve Episcopal chairs (as he expresses himself A●sw. p. 67. was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit, if so, than the Holy Ghost consecrated the twelve Apostles actually Bishops, for the final performance is the actual giving a thing, and the thing, to be given then, is by him expressed to be twelve Episcopal chairs: wherefore actually then, and not before, the Apostles were made Bishops, and had so many Episcopal chairs given them: so pretty a foolery that laughter is its properest confutation. But, to mend the jest, himself in other places strenously defends that the distinction of the Apostles presidencies of Provinces by Apostolical agreement long after the coming of the Holy Ghost, as appears by the place Gal. 2. on which he relies. And, if we should ask him how there could be twelve Episcopal chairs to rule, and preside in without twelve sorts of subjects to be presided over, and ruled, that is, twelve Bishoprics; and then ask him again where those twelve distinct Bishoprics were at the coming of the Holy Ghost, I know the good man, in stead of making good his own argument, would be forced to turn tail (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.) sat upon each of them, Who ever denied but that each of them had a tongue of fire, and that this tongue of fire sat 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 validity that the promise being sealed distinctly to every one of them was meant (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? only this, that the promise of the Keys was meant to one Apostle only or else to them altogether, or in common, so that each single Apostle could not use it; neither of which being out tenet, as he wilfully counterfeits, his argument of some valedity only impugns a calumny forged by himself; and only 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 Keys was S. Peter's peculiarity, and enclosure, and yet ever since reiterates it upon all occasions with the same vigour. Once more Mr. H. I desire you to take notice, that we hold, and are ready to grant, nay mantain, and assert, that each particular Apostle had the power of the Keys 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 we assert. If yoovintend really to impugn it, bring proofs for an equality, and no subordination; and do not thus wilfully wrong your own conscience, hazard the loss of your own and other men's Souls, and lastly, that 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 allowed to S. Peter. In answ. Schism. Disarm. p. 97. called this proof a dumb negative, and asked him how he knew there was no particular mark allowed S. Peter, since he was not there to see, and there is no history either sacred or profane that expres●es the contrary. Now the Dr. in stead of showing us upon what Grounds he affirmed this (which properly belonged to him) makes this impertinent and prevaricating objection (Answ. p. 68) It seems a negative in S. W. mouth is perfectly vocal 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 'tis no where heard of, so much is the most common sense above his short reach. Whereas I only asked him why he did affirm it without knowing it? or how he could know it having no ground to know it? perhaps it would clear his understanding a little better to put his sense, and mine into syllogism; mine stands 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 only make this Enthymene; we read of no peculiar mark or fire allowed S. Peter, therefore he had none. Or if it be made a complete 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 no such mark. And then, the sillines of the Major had shown the wisdom of its Author, who may conclude by the same Logic 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 asked 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 be manifested, yet, the silliest old wife that ever lived could not possibly stumble upon a more ridiculous proof; but, the position itself which he affirmed, being impossible to be manifested, it surpasses all degrees of ridiculousness, and aught to move rather a just 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 nonsense, and by one who professes himself a Christian and a Dr.  
Now Dr. H. against these exceptions made in Schism Disarmed says 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, only he tells us (Answ. p. 68) that, thought it be a negative argument (that is, though it prove nothing) yet he hopes by being annexed to the affirmative probation precedent, it will not be a gag to make that dumb and negative also. So that he confesses it does no good at all, only he hopes it will do no hurt to his affirmative probation; that is, to his argument of some validity already spoken of; and truly no more it does, for it remains still as arrant an affected, & wilful calumny of our tenet as ever it was.  
I added, that if we may judge by exterior actions, and may believe that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, than 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 thou and. First, the Dr. calls this (Answ. p. 68 l. 12. 13.) in a pretty odd phrase, Peter's behalf. Whereas, I only brought it for the Drs sake who good man uses to fancy any Scripture-proof better than a demonstration, not for mine own or my tenet's interest, 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. ult. 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, etc. Secondly, he says I bring it to evidence he knows not what, for 'tis not expressed but left doubtfully betwixt his being Head of the Apostles, and his having some peculiar mark▪ yet one (he supposes) designed to infer, and conclude the other whereas the intended point is expressly put down in my words now repeated by himself to wit, that S. Peter had in a peculiar manner the Holy Ghost; and the necessary connexion of this with his higher Authority expressly disclaimed 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 only to give the Dr. some satisfaction, of which (knowing his humour) I was not certain why was it not honester to express myself 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 little wool, but I hope he will think S. W. the honester man for speaking withim compass. Fourthly, he says that the Dr. (meaning himself) may not be satisfied thence that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner, to which he adds 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 own word of answer or sense, 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 down the import of this late proof ad hominem; and 'tis this, that since out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks: 'tis probable that S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in his heart more abundantly or in a higher degree, since he first expressed it's interior motions by speaking, and speaking so vigorously, and powerfully: Now then, since, in Mr. H's Grounds, the receiving the holy Ghost sealed 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 another in jurisdiction; 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 presidency in the Church performed to him. The argument bearing this sense, who sees not 'tis Dr. H's task to let us know 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 they had been mine; falsifies my known pretence twice, calls the word [perhaps] the one honest words; says the Dr. may not be satisfieed by the reason alleged 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 satisfieed, 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, seeing it could make no coherence, at length very honestly hands down its head, and says just 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 sufficient a proof as this, that the fire was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as he pedantizes it (sat 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 imagine; both of them equally impugning our tenet, that is, not at all. For we equally grant that each single Apostle had power given 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 we 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. showed the weakness of this arguing from fullness 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 parallel ridiculousness of the plough man's silly argument, who concluded alleggs equal, 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 brags at the end of the Section that he hath attended me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only he tells us here p. 69 gentily that he is not concerned 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 concerned to doubt it, shall be seen presently; in the mean time let us reflect on his other words, and ask him what is meant by the Holy Ghosts abiding in the Souls of the faithful? or by what other way he imagines him to be there than by divine endowments only. 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 imagined in this matter; and therefore, if any inequality prejudice Dr. H's tenet he is concerned 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 only in the air. 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, unless 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 filled with the Holy Ghost, and so this promise equally performed to all. But, being shown the infinite weakness of his arguing from fullness, 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 consistence of fullness, and inequality of the Holy Ghost if it be meant of the inequality of divine endowments, and then, when he should tell 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 only 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 says, the question is of power, and dignity, whereas indeed it is of the equality or inequality of this dignity, not of the dignity itself, since none denies, but that each Apostle had power in the Church, but that the rest had equal power to S. Peter. Secondly he never tells us, in what manner of the Holy Ghosts inexistence, besides that of divine endowments, this Authority was founded. Thirdly he instances only against us, that every Apostle had power; so tacitly calumniating our tenet, again, and leaves out the word equally which could only contradict and impugn it. Fourthly, that this coming of the Holy Ghost gave Commission and Authority is only his own wor●s, and proved from his own fancy▪ And last 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 touched the difficulty at all, but avoided it, with as many pitiful shifts, as a crafty insincerity could suggest to an error hardened Soul.   

Sect. 6.  
Our Argument from the Text, Tues Petrus, urged; his arts to avoid the least mentioning it, much less impugning its force, which he calls evacuating it. With what sleights he prevaricates from it to the Apocalypse. His skill in Architecture, and miserably-weak arguing to cure his bad quiboling.  
Dr. H. of Schism p. 89. 90. alleged some Testimonies out of the father's 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 Keys 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 only that more Bishops have the power of the Keys besides S. Peter; it follows necessarily that he counterfeihed our tenet to be that none had this power but S. Peter only. Hence Schism Disarmed charged this either insincere or silly manner of discoursing upon him as a pitiful ingnorance, or else as malicious to pretend by objecting these that we build not the Church upon Bishops in the plural, nor allow any Authority to them but to the Pope only. He replies Answ. p 69. that 'tis apparent those words inject not the least suspicion of that. I answer, 'tis true indeed; for it was, not a suspicion 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. adds within a parenthesis [in the plural] so placing the particular energy, and force of that place in the plurality of Bishops founding the Church. See again p. 90. l. 11. 12. etc. S. Basil calls Episcopacy the presidency of the Apostles; the very same (adds the Dr.) that Christ bestowed upon all, and not only on one of them▪ Yet as long as Dr. H. can deny it, and say with a gentile confidence that 'tis apparent his words did not inject the least suspicion of that, words shall lose their signification, and his Readers (if he can compass it) shall be fooled 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 says p. 90. l. 16. 17. etc.) if by as well he mean's equally, as he must, if he intent to impugn our tenet; And the other sense 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 we must answer the impertinent carping of our Adversary, else the weak man will be apt to think that the shadow he catched at is most substantial, 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 chiefest; and, if so, than the Church is built most chiefly on S. Peter, which is all w●e Catholics say. Now my discourse stands thus, If so, that is, if S. Peter be the chiefest then the Church is built more chiefly upon him, and I made account (as I lately showed) that those Testimonies rather made S. Peter the chiefest; but, this piece of wilful insincerity first makes my if so, relate to, if it prejudices not, etc. and disfigures my discourse by making me say, if it prejudices not S. Peter to be the chiefest, than the Church is built chiefly upon him, and that I infer from Testimonies not preiudicing that the thing is true. Next, he calumniates me most grossly, 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 only, Nay rather th●y make for us; which are so far from pretending a clear evidence from them, that they neither express the least reliance on them, not say positively that they make for us at all. He shall not catch me calling toys Evidences, as is his constant guise: 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, he grows suddenly witty, an● insults over me without mercy calling me an immortal disputer; and truly I shall not despair of being immortal, if nothing be likely to kill me but Dr. H's harmless 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 less impugned it. Our argument stands thus, that the name Peter, signifying a Rock, and this name being not only given particularly, to S. Peter, but also after a particularising manner; in all probability S. Peter was in particular manner a Rock to build God's 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 particularising manner; or else, 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 we 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 commonly called by it, as by his own proper name; certainly if that name were supposed 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 than our ●aviour made this common appellative of Rock the proper name to S. Peter (none being called Peter but he) and that we cannot doubt of our Saviour's prudence in thus appropriating it to him, we 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 particularising manner, besides all other circumstances concerning the power of the Keys heretofore which are competent to this also, two things in particular are energetical or of force here; to wit that repeating the name Pe●er to him [Tues Petrus] followed immediately after his confession of Christ's divinity; an occasion as proper to make him confirmed a Rock in a particular manner and degree, as it would be to confirm the Antonomasticall title of Orator to that other parallel 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 Governor, upon such a proper occasion, would in prudence argue that this person was in an higher proportion & degree an Orator, so the repeating this name in such a way to S. Peter [and I say unto thee thou art Peter, or a Rock] after a parallel occasion, his particular confession of Christ's divinity, as much fitting him for it, aught in prudence to infer that he was in an higher degree a Rock than the rest. The other thing in which a particular energy 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 sense of our argument from the Text [Tu es Petrus] as joined with the antecedent, and subsequent circumstances in stead of solving which or showing that his opposite sense 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says 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 applied to a building it must needs signify a foundation-stone thence, by the Apocalypse, a precious stone; this done he falls to deduce from the measuring a wall in the same Apocalypse, and dogmatizes upon it, though he knows it is the obscurest and most mystical part of Scripture; and then thinks he hath played 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 substantial part of ●his Controversy; now to his toys.  
He assures us Answ. p. 71. that his answer cannot miss to have this discernible efficacy in it, that there b●ing no more meant 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, etc. I Reply: first, that pretended answer Misses of being an Answer to the place Tu es Petrus and is turned to be an argument from the foundation-stones in the Apocalypse. Why did not he show that the particularising circumstances in the objected place had no 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 removals as was used once to prove, that Cooper came from King Pipin. His answer therefore hath missed to be an answer at all to that place, that is, of being all it should be. Next, how knows he no more is meant by it than that S. Peter was a foundation-stone, unless he can answer first the particularising circumstances in the Text, which entitle him to be a Rock after a particular manner, or show that his contrary sense more genuinly emerges out of or a grease to the words there found: Thirly, that the other Apostles are such as well as S. Peter, if by [as well] he means that the rest were so too, 'tis 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 he ought, this being the question between us, than we expect he should show us out of the words that this is equally probably their sense. Till he show this, our argument from the words makes still in his prejudice, and is justly 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 only is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chief cornerstone, and no other place in the foundation gives any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of power to one foundation above another, which he manifests from the known position of foundation-stones, one by, not on the top of another. Thus this apocalyptical 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 only this, that all the Apostles were foundations upon which the Church is built, which is granted, till he manifest the former he can not pretend to deduce any thing from it against us. Secondly 'tis impossible to pretend that it was designed to prove any such order of dignity: for, it neither shows us which was the chief corner stone, or that the chief cornerstone was higher, bigger, or more precious than the rest. So that, if the bringing no positive sign of an higher position prejudices S. Peter's Superiority it prejudices Christ also as much, expressing no peculiar eminency to the head cornerstone at all more than to the rest. Thirdly the cornerstone signifying some eminency of power as appears by our Saviour's being called the head cornerstone, and this wall being-four-square Apoc. 21. v. 16. it follows that there are other corners besid's that which is allowed 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 signified, and consequently the whole place is quite besides the Drs purpose, and our question.  
Fourthly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being directly the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Dr. H. grants and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in near three score places of Scripture taken for a Rock and so translated by themselves; and in particular, in this very place in Controversy Mat. 16. v. 18. super hanc Petram, upon this Rock, etc. although the other Apostles be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foundations, yet, since none of them is expressed to be a Rock but S. Peter only, nor that the Church is built on any of them else as on a Rock, still he hath good title in all reason to be in a more eminent notion a foundation-stone. For the notion of a foundation-stone not consisting in this that it rise higher, that it be longer upwards or shorter, but that it be unmoveable, and the strongest bearer of the superstructure; and, a Rock in the Scripture being expressed 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 firmness, and immoveablenes in being built upon him; yet the Dr. can imagine no distinction amongst foundation-stones under that notion, as long as they lie one by, not on the top another. So wise an Architect is the good man that he forgets, that to be in a higher degree a foundation-stone is to be in a higher degree of firmness, but in a lower degree of position. Thus Reader though seest what advantage Dr. H. would gain should I delight to quibble with him in his own, and only way. But I am already weary of this wordish stuff.  
Next he undertakes to solve an argument which none objects but himself, and 'tis this, that if S. ●eter be the first stone, and so Superior, than the next stone (that is the second) must needs be Superior, to all the rest, etc. So kind an Adversary have I that he leaves untouched the argument, 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 coining from the Apocalypse not worth a straw, ad then demolishes at pleasure, and very easily what his own airy fancy had built. But, as I never made any such argument as this which he thrusts upon me, so in that which I made Schism Disarm. p. 103. from the jasper stone, I both expressed myself to do it for the Doctor's sake, and renounced all reliance upon it in these words, that Catholics who understand the Grounds of their faith slight 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 only (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 we object it; nor takes notice of any particularising circumstance in the whole place so full fraught with them; much less concludes against them. And, secondly his wise proof which infers 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 than a Rock, and so less worthy the notion and name of a foundation, or a thing fit to build on which if there be, as common sense tells us, than 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 pitiful piece of ignorance to persuade the Reader from a plurality and naming twelve Apostles that all were equal, 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 its own place attended by a throng of manifestly particularising circumstances, but the bare word Petrus only, nor that neither, according to it's particular efficacity as it signifies a rock) 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, we never denied but that each of them was such; or else, [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 be imagined to infer it there▪ but from a plurality only of the common appellation. Ne●ther could I wrong Dr. H's reasoning faculty in thinking so, whose common custom it is all over to argue for an equality from a plurality, and most expressly 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 confess I was so dull as not to apprehend.  
Thirdly I objected that he had quite overthrown his own cause; since, granting that a foundation stone, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the same and only S. Peter having the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it followed on the Drs Grounds that he only, and in good reason more particularly should be a foundation-stone. Dr. H. replies, first, that this is a strange argument were it put into form. Next, (observe his kindness) he will not trouble himself with that; but in stead of doing this, that is, in stead of showing my argument nothing worth, he recurr's to his own confident sayings that 'tis 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 own certain, he introduces his so oft repeated conclusion, with a Sure, and then all is evident, After this he puts a pretended parallel to my argument thus. 'tis as if I should say Man, and Enosh being the same and only the Son of Seth having the name of Enosh it follows on these Grounds, that he only, and, in good reason, that he more particularly should be a man, And when he hath done he finds out a way for S. W. to defend himself from not being a man; not considering that if Enosh be the only man, it unmans Dr. H. as much as S. W. But, I thank him, I will none of his assistance; and as for his pretended parallel I answer that when the ordinary appellative, properly signifying the special notion, is appropriated prudently to some one thing or person, that thing or person ought to be 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 Critics 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 Latin. 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 engrossed in him.  
So likewise the common name of Filius hominis, Son 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 signified by those words. Again the name Enosh might be in a manner accidentally imposed by his parents, and was his first name, which therefore cannot be imagined to have any mystery in it more than the bare conceit of his Parents; unless we suppose his parents to have been prophetical, and then it had an especial 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 designs in order to that name; and denote him by the Antonomasticall appropriation of that common word, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and eminently what it signified by it; to wit, a Rock.  
Hence appears with what reason I made my fourth objection to Dr. H. that he would have all the Apostles called Peter. For since it is not imaginable why our Saviour should appropriate and particularise 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 he makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the selfsame) it follows that our Saviour had equal reason to give to each of the rest also the same name of Peter; for, there ought to be no particularising in any action, where there is a pure indifferency in the reason of the action. Now then, since our Saviour governed himself 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 equal. But this man who pretends to evacuate (as he calls 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 only, and so is rendered by their own translation Apoc. 21. v. 14. which abstracts, Grammatically speaking, from Sand, straw, wool packs, wood, rock, or whatsoever else can be competent to a foundation good, or bad. Now then, since S. Peter is called 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 piece of affected weakness. 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 total performance in answering this last Section, acknowledged by himself to be most important and fundamental.  
AFter this Professor of Mystical 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 dogmatise, that is, to build his faith and destroy his own interpretation of a Mystical 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 'tis the most openly-pernicious folly that can be imagined, first to tell his Readers that Schism is as great a sin as Sacrilege, Idolatry, Antichristianisme, etc. as he does (of Schism. c. 1.) and then, in stead of bringing evident, convincing, and demonstrative reasons, which only can secure the Soul of any conscientious man, (especially confessing that salvation may be had, if he had still remained 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 meant 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, 'tis evident that this mensuration assigns an equal proportion whether of power, or Province to all and every of the Apostles the sense of which he repeats again here Answ. p. 73. To show the ridiculousness of this proof Schism Disarm p. 102. asked him, whether none of those precious stones, which equally made up this wall, be richer than the rest? and why, if it were so, the inequality in richness, should not more argue an inequality in dignity and Authority amongst those who were represented by them, than the equal bulk can argue an equality, since the worth, dignity & value of precious stones is taken from their richness and not from their bulk. Next arguing against him in his own way I inferred, 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 expressed to be a jasper, the same stone whose lustre shined in our Saviour Apoc. 4. 3. and also in his Church, Apoc. 21. 11. it would have been prized for a rare argument by Dr. H. were he in my case, (though slighted by me) that S. Peter only having the same lustre with our Saviour, was like him in representation; and so, he only 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. says nothing at all; and so, is nothing punctual in his promised attendance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, he vindicates not his argument to be worth a rush; for, if the lustre & richness be more valuable, and worthy in its self, and so more apt to express dignity than the bigness or bulk; then the inequality of richness 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 richness, as there is amongst those stones, every Lapidary, and even common sense will inform us that an inequality in dignity is unavoidable. But the good Dr. who at first thought his nice argument a rare business, seeing it marred, and all unravelled, as easily happens to such cobweb stuff, 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 persuaded 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 'Tis a rare method of answering to make two little pedantic Greek words, which a man would think had nothing in them, stop such great holes.  
In answer to that which concerns the jasper stone, he tells us first (if we will believe 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 sense) to make my advantage of it: And, seeing we 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 be 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 conditions proposed here by himself; in which I shall find no difficulty, they being both tacitly granted already.  
The first condition is, that I must find mean's to assure myself that S. Peter was signified by that jasper-stone. Is not this a sincere man, and a pretty discourser, who would have me find a thing ere it be lost. I already found that mean's (he well knows) in Schism Disarm. p. 103. (which he brags 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 me Schism Disarm. p. 103 grants S. Peter a Primacy of order, and Apoc. 21. 19 in the orderly recounting the stones the jasper is mentioned to be the first in that order; I see no possibility for Dr. H. to evade, but S. Peter was meant by the jasper. Himself saw the same also; which made him so shufflingly wary that in stead of replying to it, which was likely to cost him no less than either the denying his own most express words, or the most express words of Scripture, he only tells me gentily, I must find mean's to assure myself that S. Peter was signified by that jasper-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 find them again the second time, and this is the signification of that mongrel 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 condition is, that I must find mean's to assure myself that the lustre of the jasper 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 be represented by a less lustrous stone than the rest the sincere man only bids me find it again, whereas, it remains still visibly extant in its original integrity and untouched yet by Dr. H. and so he knew well enough where to find 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 we should think (unless he 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 jasper being applied to them, we have no reason to imagine the contrary but rhat it had a more perfect and glorious lustre than the rest.  
But this is not all I aimed to induce hence ad hominem against Dr. H. my pretence was sufficiently intimated in the same place, that the lustre of the jasper was used in the Apocalypse to represent persons of higher dignity and Authority to wit, our Saviour and his Church and so the same stone representing S. Peter only, expressed his higher dignity in a double relation, to our Saviour as being like in representation, and so only 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 offered to show the Dr. overthrows in his own wordish way, and in his own weak argument: to which notwithstanding he gives no attendance at all, nor any other solution save only says on his own head, that the lustre of the jasper most properly signifies the lustre of zeal, and other gifts: but what Grounds he hath to think that it signified no higher worth, or dignity, as applied to our Saviour and his Church, but only zeal, and gifts; or why, as applied to S. Peter (to whom only a mongst the Apostles it is attributed) it should not signify the same as it did in other places, he offers nothing Only he calls his sitting still when 'tis his duty thus to be be stir himself, a precise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attendance.  
Lastly, for an upeshot, himself knows not whether this still born argument from the equal mensuration of the wall makes for him or against him; for, he infers only that it assigns an equal 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 only question between us, unless 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 equal. Again (to omit that his conceit of Apostolical Provinces hath been shown to be perfectly chimerical and Groundless) what doth the equality of their particular Province prejudice us? since with this it may well consist, that one of those Governors though equal 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 universal affairs recourse is to be had, as to a Superior.  
Wherefore till Dr. H. afford me Evidence that this Mystical place hath reference to power, or indifferently either to power, or Province (for though he be in doubt what it signifies yet he tells us (of Schism p. 91.) 'tis evident, I shall take the liberty my nature allows me, to assent unto neither; but rather to think that it relates to the different disposition of Souls, only known to God, as his Mystical Author before explicated himself in another occasion; and, that the heavenly Jerusalem shall be made up of such, some of them resenting and resembling the Spirit that is the particular manner of the knowledge; and affection of S. Peter, others those of S. john, of S. Paul, etc. 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 presumed as with a literal, and gross familiarity known or seen by our muddy and flesh-veiled eyes; which they do who pretend to dogmatise & bring rigorous evidence (the only rational ground of faith) from such depths of obscurity; the most pernicious and boldest irreverence that can be offered to be only 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 Keys 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 business 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 we 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 examined is only 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 connatural, nor one equalizing word of this power to counterpoise the many particularising terms objected by us, nor given us any other explication of those particularising Texts, save only his conceit against the Presbyterians which he pretends not to show deducible from the letter, but says it upon his own fancy only; that he omits to answer, or take notice of the most forcible and energetical parts of those Texts, and the most difficult arguments we produce ad hominem against him; that he hath not brought one Authority to second his interpretation of twelve thrones for twelve Episcopal chairs, though he promised us there; but falsified and abused one Author, pretending him to vouch his interpretation, though most expressly and point blank against him; injured another, by taking literally, and in a dogmatic rigour what he expressed himself to mean mystically and yet even that Mystical explication contradicting and disgracing many parts of his doctrine in this point; and dissemblingly concealing the words, and place where 'tis found in the third Author. That he hath shuffled about most pitifully to make good his negative arguments, and his proof of equality from a bare plurality and fullness; that pretending to answer the place, Tu es Petrus, he leaves 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, giveth for his solution Grounds for all the Apostles to be called 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 he omits to reply to those passages which showed 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 untouched; and most miserably shuffled about, blundered & quibbled in all the rest.  

THE CONCLUDING SECTION.  
Reason why the Disarmer proceeded no further in laying open Dr. H's fault. Objected Falsifications, cleared; and some of them retorted upon the Objector. An unparallelled and evidently wilful one of the Drs, presented to himself and his Friends in requital. Friendly counsel to the Dr at parting.  
AND now, understanding Reader, what dost thou expect further? that I should lose my own ill employed time, & vex thy patience, already cloyed, with laying open this Drs weaknesses & false dealings through the rest of his book? or rather, dost thou not complain how unnecessary so long a refute is to such a Trifler; and candidly correct me (as some judicious friends have already done) that it had been 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 judicious & ingenious lovers of truth & reason? I confess in the tedious process of this Reply, seeing nothing worthy a man, that is, nothing which pretended a rigorous or rational discourse, I became wholly of their mind too: yet, I had such regard to the weakness of the multitude of Readers, that I still proceeded in laying open minutely the unparallelled sillines & insincerity of their adored preaching Doctor; and the tyranny of that consideration had transported me into farther inconveniencies, so as to show 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 & Scholars, who are the flower of Readers, are deterred & 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 ungrateful, when nothing is to be seen but the faults of a writer laid open, which was the reason, that, to give some tincture of solidness to my Reply, & so to take of the tediousness from knowing Readers, I have taken occasion to discuss some points (as those concerning Possession, the Church's power to bind to belief, the certainty of Tradition, etc.) 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 endeavour to clear it rationally; which therefore I conceive would be more grateful & 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 ungrateful, & to them unprofitable; nay, all of it, confess't by Dr. H. himself (as shall be seen) to be unnecessary.  
Thirdly, I had acknowledged some behold to the Catholic Gentleman's letter; &, so, had drawn upon myself 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 replied quite through, it would have made too-large a volume.  
Fourthly, the B. of Derry had, ere I had answered Dr. H's first part, put out a refute to my Appendix to Schism Disarmed; which obliged 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 wound Adversary.  
Fifthly, the task itself of answering such kind of sleight soul'd Writers was most tedious & irksome to any one who pretends to & aims at Science; nay most irrational and senseless; consisting in this, that, rigorous discourse & the immediate & evident connexion of terms (that only 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 wormeaten Record or testimony; which, without the help of this Tradition can claim no original Authority at all, much less against it; and, for the most part, is falsified, 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 sense 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 & sense of Authors, omitting words most important for us, adding others most important for himself, suborning Arch-heretics for true fathers, building upon Testimonies fetch't from those of his own side, alleging 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 else mistaking the question all over; as oft calumniating our tenets & positions, running division upon a dough-baked 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 distinctions & explications, which he uses, against their nature, to involve & confound: recurring to & dilating himself much in the general 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, expressly, 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 believe; 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 convinced to behave himself so weakly & insincerely in that part of his book which himself accounts only to have been fundamental; the like might justly be expected (without showing it by detail) in the rest of his book, which he acknowledges to be less 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 substantial to the question of Schism, and by consequence most highly concerns men's 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 me) to stand manifesting the faultiness of others, further than I can be satisfied it is precisely necessary; judging it the most illiberal task that a Soul which longs after Science could be put upon, to be employed in discovering the disingenuity & weaknesses of the wronger's 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 find them to deserve, than to reveal the vices & shame of bad ones; as my favourable expressions, on the by, concerning the acuteness of the Lords, Faukland & Digby, & the wittiness of that Giant for fancy, Dr. Donne, in my Schism Disarmed, clearly testify.  
Eightly, I was much deterred even from endeavouring any particular exactness 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 & easy for them to brag of a quicker Reply, to whom the press is free, & the book cellar's shop licenced, both to print & vent them openly with security & advantage: whilst those Authors, whose books, are prohibited printing in England under great penalties & forfeitures, after they have passed 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 allowed what in reason is due for such disencouragements, hazards & delay.  
Ninthly, 'tis a far more secure satisfaction to candid Readers to see a main part of a book answered completely & fully, than the whole slubberingly and imperfectly (as I have, and shall show further, that Dr. H. hath answered 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 debars that licentiousness, and all pretence of that excuse; and so makes either the cause or the Writer unavoidably fall under a just suspect if it chance to fall short of being satisfactory: But especially if that part of the book, which is thus fully replied to be acknowledged by both sides to be solely important, a conciser and solider way of satisfaction cannot be imagined.  
Lastly, if all those former reasons alleged will exuse me from performing a needle's duty, Dr. H. himself shall complete my just excuse, & confess this was needles: who in his book of Schism p. 92. after he had finished his sleight discourse against S. Peter's Supremacy (the part which I have largely replied to) he adds that 'tis very unnecessary to proceed to the other part of it, etc. that this is in effect the only ground of the Romanists pretensions, etc. that he 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 than needs, and so he desires it may be looked 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 business in hand: that, the case of our Schism fundamentally depends on that Supremacy, etc. Thus he. Now then, I have fully replied to & vindicated our tenet in all that he calls fundamental, only necessary, our only Ground, and which he professes he peremptorily insists on, it follows that, had I done more, I had done a business not important, nor fundamental, nor on which they peremptorily insist; and so, it being also unnecessarily for me to vindicate a point, which he thinks very unnecessary to prosecute, my further endeavours had been confessedly to no end, or frivolous, if taken alone; but, joined to my former reasons, absolutely unwise & temerarious.  
I omit that Dr. H. neglecting to answer almost all my 9th Section of the 2d part of Schism Disarmed, which proved the Protestants guilty of the material fact of Schism; and all my 10th Section, which proved them guilty of the formal 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 intrinsically, fundamentally, & substantially concern our question, and passing them over slightly p. 224. after he pretended falsely that I beg the question, with telling the Reader that he will leave me to Skirmish with my own shadow whereas it was the hottest Schirmish in the book (as any ordinary eye may discern) I conceive it gives me just occasion to neglect answering that in him, which himself confesses neither substantial nor fundamental.  
I omit also that I was often blamed by respected and knowing friends, for losing so much precious time, in such a worthless foolery; which I might have employed much better to mine own & others advantage; they assuring me likewise that his Reply was not valued by any indifferent and judicious persons; nor by all on his own side but only by a few; who were so irrational (& therefore inconsiderable) that they never examined any thing, but immediately took that to be in reality an Answer which was called so: & would judge him always to have the best, who should speak the last word, whether it were sense or no.  
Thus much to show that I had no precise necessity nor just 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 myself from his senseless aspersions. But, indeed, in nothing can I more discredit & disgrace him than in rehearsing & clearing what he objects in this Kind. For, by this the candid Reader seeing how inconsiderable the worst is he can say against me, 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 fault 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 convinced to have belied the Author he citys, & to have falsified wilfully. Faults of this sort he objects to me only 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 judge that I wilfully changed any thing, that is, gained or endeavoured to gain the least possible advantage by my mistake, (which is the only touchstone, as it is the sole reason of falsifying) than I give him free leave to brand me in his thoughts for infamous, and shall in requital pardon Dr. H. the long roll of his wilful 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 judge whether my oversight had any influence at all upon the point in hand; and conclude, that, if evidently it had none, than it was only a material lapse in transcribing Dr. H's words, equally incident to any man living, not a formal fault.  
In his book of Schism p. 124, parag. 19 he attempts to prove that Kings have supreme power in Ecclesiastical causes. Amongst his other marginal notes aiming 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 total of his objection.  
The substance of my Answer, ●ound Schism Disarmed p. 167. is this, that all the laws found there, must not necessarily be justinian's; since the Keepers of laws use not only 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 Ecclesiastical power. This is the main & substance of my Answer to that objection in general.  
How weakly he replies to this, telling us only Answ. p. 202. that this cannot possibly be accommondated to the matter in hand, because 'tis certain (cries the strong reasoning Dr.) he made many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning Ecclesiastical matters, which the Author's 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 pitiful this Reply of his is, how nothing to the point: this being to say over again what we grant, and leaving untouched 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 called to account. But, this concerns not my task at present; which is only this, to put down substantially the question, his proof, & my Reply, that it may be thence judged whether I could possibly be said to gain any advantage by the circumstances I faltered in.  
The first of those circumstances is that whereas his words were justinian's 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 failings: But, if he pretend that I falsified or did it voluntarily, plain sense will overthrow him quit me. No man does a thing voluntarily but for some end; and the end an insincere Writer can be imagined 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 show I gained 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 mentioned it or any thing to that sense; 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 alleges only 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 falsely 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 syllable 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 itself applied to my words: for, since he denies not but I transcribed right, and grants that he made laws de Episcopis & Clericis; of Bishops and Clergy men; to what end should I omit Sacris, sacred offices since he that could make laws concerning those, who were over Sacred offices, could a fortiori make laws for the Sacred Offi●ies themselves: as himself yields of Schism p. 125. l. 18. 19  
And, lastly, this objection is convinced to be most senseless by this, that my Answer given was equally pertinent & strong, applied 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 Constitutions de Sacris, as that they made them de Episcopis & Clericis.  
In a word, I confess, the infinite tediousness of my dreaming Adversary made me write the whole book in some haste, caused by my impatience to stand trifling after that manner; and my particular haste 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 seemed warranted by my fore knowledge that justinian (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 material error, to which the best & wisest man living is obnoxious: material, 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 only (but false) pretence that I gained hence advantage to cavil at them, examined by any Readers eye, all conspire to excuse it from being formal & affected.  
Yet, this is my great falsification; the rest are such pitiful toys 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 laid 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, etc. I call it Iustinian's third book. Where's the difference? only here, that justinian (as is agreed & granted by both) writ those laws, but another collected them, so that, according to him 'tis a falsification to call those laws Iustinian's book, which himself both here & in the following page confesses justinian constituted or writ, because another collected them into a Sy●nopsis. Alas poor man! yet this falsification is plurally expressed with the former, & put in the title of his Section as a business of great concern. Now, he never pretends that this empty chimaera of a falsification, has any influence at all upon my cause or Answer, only he tells me I have ill luck: and, indeed so I have; but 'tis only 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 just 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 umpirage 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 than 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 just regret, which such inexcusable follies & disingenuities of their preaching Dr. will cause in their partial 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 honoured with letters Patents from the Kings, with the name & dignity of Metropoles: Now, the Greek as put down by himself, being only that they were honoured 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 jurisdiction, I excepted with good reason against his rendering the single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies only with the name, by that double & advantageous expression of [name & dignity.] My exception Schism Disarm. p. 145. l. 3. 4. etc. was delivered in these words, that the council says only, those cities were honoured 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, & alleges it is put in by me; whereas, 'tis most palpably manifest, I used the word [alone] as my own word not the councills, 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 using the limitative particle [only] or [alone] to restrain his extravagant interpretation, no man living can imagine. 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 common letter, in which I used to put mine own words throughout the whole book as contradistinguished from the words of others (as is to be seen Schism Disarm. p. 145. l. 4. 5.) yet all this minute wariness, which left no possible room for any cavil, was not sufficient to secure my sincerity, nor stave of Dr. H. from his needful, & now grown natural 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, owned 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 cavil & calumny merely upon his own insincere carriage; in which I must tell him plainly he has committed a piece 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 unjust accusation only 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 unjustly 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 metropolitans (erected by Kings) should enjoy only the honour; and then alleged Balsamon's words, that this honour meant no more but that that Bishopric 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 Author's words aright, but mangledly & corruptly to my only & best advantage, as your custom 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 falsified? why thus. Balsamon (alleges the Dr.) Says no more than this that [some asked, or heard, or were told, etc.] Good! use thine eyes again, Reader, & see whether, Schism Disarm. p. 145. l. 13. 14. etc. 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 meant; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and received Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that except only that this Bishopric, 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 judgement of others, I quoted him as an Historian, not as judge: nor can the very words put down by me [Some desired, etc.] possibly permit such a conceit. Nor, had it been my advantage (could common sense 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 its meaning. For, of whom should we imagine in reason such a question was asked, 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 sense of that council, and satisfied by some judicious persons intimately acquainted with, or of that council itself, 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 myself should bear it, and also very disadvantageous to my cause to pretend Balsamon spoke this of his own judgement: and consequently the irrational & perfectly groundless aspersion of this Dr. lie 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 as much besides the purpose as the former. Besides this, I say (mark the strength of the Drs words) It is clear that this of being only called M●tropolitans, was the punishment inflicted on them by the council, which as I said, etc. 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 seemed 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 go about to show any such thing? how then, and with what face can you pretend I falsified it? If all ill consequences or deductions be falsifications, than it is impossible, where men maintain different opinions, but one side or other must necessarily be falsifiers. Since than 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 groundless pretence that I falsified is proved to be an undeniable evidence that Dr. H. most wilfully and weakly calumniated And, as for his endeavour to invalidate my consequence, laid out here in those pretty terms of, I say, it is clear; as I said, etc. 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, kind Reader, I have acquitted myself, & shown to thine eye, that the greatest faults the most calumniating Adversary could pick out of my writings are perfectly innocent: but, what worthy requital for so much injustice can I offer to Dr. H. I could present thee, Reader, with a long black Scroll of egregious & wilful 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 escaped my observation when I first answered it (so pregnant & fruitful are his writings of such helps) I could let thee see there, p. 103. how citing the Novels that justinian ordained the Archbishop of justiniana should have in that diocese, locum Apostolicae Sedis, (as he puts it) and then Englishes it, the place or dignity of an Apostolical Seat, which thus put equals him in a manner to the dignity of any other Apostolical Seat by this independency; the false dealing man leaves out the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Rome] though found closely woven in the context thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Apostolical Seat of Rome; which mars 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 grossly & wilfully only 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 only that the Emperor constituted this Archbishop should have locum Apostolicae Sedis, the place of an (as he falsifies it) Apostolical Seat; but leaves out what follows immediately in the same sentence to his prejudice, & utter overthrow, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: according to those things which were decreed by the holy Pope Vigilius; which signifies that the Pope made that Archbishop his Vicegerent in those Countries by his decree, and that this order of the Emperor was subsequent, conformable to & only executed the former intentions & orders of the Pope; all expressly 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 partial Admiter, (if he have not absolutely renounced his reason & resolved the slender fading thing into the Drs Authority) must see & confess he was wilfully fraudulent, & intended to breed in the Readers mind by the words thus maimedly & falsely put, another apprehension than the testimony itself, 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 believe, 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 & bashful language will to these good weak sighted Souls be a cloak thick enough to hide or excuse his immoderately shameful deeds. Of such kind 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 maintained & asserted by him. Peruse my book attentively, & thou shalt observe I never call his material 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 only when I manifest the advantage he got by such a carriage, which he never goes about to show in those he objects to me. Again, thou ●eest how easily those falsifications he pretends as mine, are cleared; nay shown to thine eye to be unconcerning toys or groundless wilful calumnies; His which I objected in Schism Disarmed, are left by him uncleared, 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 mind; only be not partial in what is evidently fraudulent, and then thou shalt right Truth, thyself, & me too by one impartially ingenuous & rational act. I have only 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 willingness to acknowledge faults so plainly & undeniably open, than to continue your fruitless pains to show yourself 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 ways I know, and yourself 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 sense of your Testimonies; and to content yourself with any sleight gloss, which (not your impartial judgement gives absolutely to be the meaning, but what) your partial fancy can imagine 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 far with you. For, to clear yourself of these falsifications & other manifold faults satisfactorily, is impossible; eyesight attesting them; not to clear yourself of them is doubly disgraceful, fluttering up & down (as your way of writing is) entangles you more: Sat still, and you will be safer. You cannot but see & acknowledge that your position of a probable faith leads directly to Atheism, if followed, and that, since none has reason to assent further than he has reason, that is, further than 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 believed; 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 only certain Rule of faith, immediate Tradition; and the consciousness to yourself that your weak testimony-way reaches no further than probability, enforces you to own it, and aim at no higher a pitch of satisfaction, that is, none at all, for, how can probability satisfy? Look behind you then, & see what a great deal of industry & time you have fruitlessly 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, only is called knowledge, the former without this is more apt to lead to ignorance & mistake leaving only a confusion of motley incoherent thoughts in a man's head, impossible to be orderly ranked in the posture of knowledge, unless regulated by fore laid 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 itself, in Science, or of the Authority, in faith. Suffer yourself to be won to the imitation of these pursvers of knowledge; leave talking words, & begin to speak Sense; 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 airy talk, begin to judge & know, instead of empty flourish, learn to be solid. Ina word aim seriously to know, that is, to assent upon Evidence, and then, I am confident, our understandings will meet in a joint-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 & natural alacrity to honour & serve you in what you can justly be conceive 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 miscarriages being joined to the certainty & concernment of his cause you injured by them,  
YOUR SERVANT, S. W.  
FINIS.     

THE APPENDIX VINDICATED AGAINST THE PRETENDED REPLY OF Dr. Bramhall Ld of Derry.  

THE INTRODUCTION.  
LITTLE remains to be replied to my second Adversary in substantial and fundamental points, either in behalf, of R. C. or S. W. if those passages in which I bring Dr. H. to Grounds be 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 he pretend demonstrative and rigorous Evidence that the Pop'es Authority was an usurpation, and so their renouncing it no criminal breach but a lawful self-enfranchisement: Nor last, does he endeavour to show that less, than such rigorous Evidence (that is, that probable reasons) are sufficient ground to renounce, such an Authority; and so strongly supported by a long possession, an universal delivery of immediate forefathers as come from Christ, etc. or, that it was prudence to hazard a Schism, & consequently their salavations upon the uncertain lottery of a probability. This was all which fundamentally concerned 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 only hope it from courtesy, not claim it from justice, that they are vouchsafed any answer at all; since, they who will not be drawn to speak to the purpose, deserve to been neglected, and suffered to talk to no purpose.  
Now, for satisfaction how little can be said to those most concerning points, to omit other places, I refer my Reader to Sect. 9 & 10th of the 2d part of Schism Disarmed left in a manner wholly unanswered as yet by Mr. H. and to my Grounds before the foregoing Treatise.  
In answer to the Title Down-Derry he shows himself mystically proverbial, and tells the amused Readers, that it were strange if he 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 be meant by sealing a Bowl upon an undersong. Only lest he should conceit some petty victory in having thus posed his Adversary, he 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 jest was very proper & fatal; but, whether courteous or no, I leave the Bp. and him to scuffle for it: and address myself to a serious examine of the Bishop's Reply. We have seen already that he is a good Bowler, let us see now whether he be an honestman.  

Sect. 1.  
How my Ld of Derry omits totally to mention the second part of our charge; and prevaricates from answering any title of the first, by cavilling groundlessly at unconcerning toys; giving us general terms in stead of the particular thing; falsifying openly the Council of Ephesus; contradicting common sense; 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 he will not answer our charge or Objection.  
IT was objected that the crime of Schism would appear to be justly charged upon his Church not only 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 acknowledged as of Christ's Institution, upon Exceptions short of Demonstration; that is, short of power to convince a rational understanding; that is, Passion & not those reasons must move first the will, and by it the understanding to a conviction; that is, the breach or Schism was criminal. Now the good Bishop  
First leaves out the second part of these words, [the nature of his Exceptions] which concerned himself; and puts down only the first part, to wit, the position of the case. Whereas, we charge them not with Schism upon this single account, that they broke from a formerly-acknowledged Authority, which is the position of the case; but, that they broke from it without having Evident & demonstrative reasons and Exceptions against it, but, at best, pretended probable ones only; that is, such as are no ways 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 qualified. For, what a slack thing would the world be, if probable Exceptions of the subjects (I mean, such as are held no more than probable by the subjects themselves) should be held sufficient ground to disacknowledge their governor'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 allowed and practised; unless, perhaps, force prevailed over reason? The Bishop had good reason then to omit that which concerned 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 be brought to the test, or their validity to convince the understanding scanned; that is, they love not to speak out whether they be demonstrative, or probable only. They dare not assert the former, conscious that their best way of discoursing is only thetoricall, topical, and for the most part quibbling and blundering in a wordish testimony, whence no demonstration, or (its proper effect) conviction is likely to be 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 injury to a rational nature, claim its 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 be so? It was not therefore dishonesty in the Bishop, going about to impugn his Adversary, to omit one half of that which he grounded himself on; but a great deal of prudenc● and wariness, or indeed a kind of necessity.  
Secondly proceeding upon this mistake of his own, he wrangles with us, for calling this our chief objection against them; as king us if stating the question and objecting be all one? No sure; if we speak rigorously: but a Charge against one is often called, an Objection. Now ours against you (which you here purposely mutilate) is this, that you left a preacknowledged Ecclesiastical Authority, upon fantastic Exceptions, that is, unpon uncertain Grounds: Which objection (if verified) so evidently concludes you wilful Schismatics, that it is impossible to be cloaked or evaded. Now the first part, which concerns your actual rejecting that actual Authority, is notorious to the whole world, and confessed by yourselves. The second, that you did it upon uncertain Grounds, yourself when you are pressed to it will confess also; for, I presume, you dare not pretend to rigorous demonstration; Both, because yourself would be the first Protestant that ever pretended it; as also, because your best Champions grant your faith & its Grounds but probable. And, should you pitch upon some one best reason or testimony pretended to demonstrate your point, we should quickly make an end of the Controversy, by showing it short of concluding evidently, as you well know: which makes you always either disclaim, or decline that pretence; never pitching upon any one pretended convincing or demonstrative reason which you dare stand to, but huddling 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 be.  
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 be 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. denied 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' days? Does not the Bps. of Schism. c. 7. par. 2. fellow-fencer, Dr. H. confess in express terms, And first, for the matter of fact, it is acknowledged that in the Reign of K. H. the 8th, the Papal power in Ecclesiastical affairs, was, both by Acts of Convocation of the Clergy, & by statutes or Acts of Parliament, cast out of this Kingdom? Was this power itself thus cast out before? that is, was it not in actual force till and at this time? and is not this time extolled as that in which the Reformation in this point began? We beg then nothing gratis, but begin our process, upon truth acknowledged by the whole world. Our case puts nothing but this undeniable and evident matter of fact: whence we conclude them, criminally-Schismaticall, unless their Exceptions against this Authority's right be such as, in their own nature, oblige the understanding to assent that this Authority was usurped; only which can justify such a breach. So that the Bishop first omits to mention the one half, of that on which we build our charge, (to wit, the nature of their Exceptions;) and, when he hath done, wilfully mistakes, and mispresents the other: persuading the unwary Reader that the case we put is involved in ambiguities, and may be stated variously; whereas 'tis placed in as open a manifestation as the sun at noonday, and acknowledged universally. In neither of which the Bishop hath approved himself too honest a man.  
Now, let us see what he answers to the case itself. 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 unity, 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 be acknowledged for obligatory, and nothing in them to be changed. For Government, her Principle was, that Christ had made S. Peter first, or chief, or Prince of his Apostles; who was to be the first Mover under him in the Church after his departure out of this world, etc. and, that the Bishops of Rome, as successors of S. Peter, inherited from him this privilege in respect of the successors 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 no less evident that, in the reign of Ed the 6th Q. Elizabeth and her successors, neither the former Rule of Unity of faith, nor this second of Unity 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, etc.  
This is our case, jointly 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 so asquint upon a thing which he was concerned to view, as my Ld of Deity does at the position of this plain case.  
First, he answers, that we would obtrude upon them the Church of Rome and its dependants for the Catholic Church. Whereas, we neither urge any such thing in that place, nor so much as mention there the word Catholik; as is to be seen in my words put down here by himself, p. 3. but only 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 positively to which, or replying I or Noah, the fearful, Bishop starts a side to this needle's disgression.  
Next, he 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 rejected those two Principles of faith and Government, in which formerly they consented with her. To this the wary Bp. says nothing.  
After these weak evasions, he tells us, that the Court of Rome had excluded two third parts of the Catholic 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 invite him only to confess or deny what they did; and whether they renounced those two Principles of Unity, or no: not to stand railing thus unseasonably upon his own head what our Church did; she shall clear herself when due circumstances require such a discourse. Again, whenas we object that they thus broke from all those which held Communion with the Church of Rome; he 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 only. Did ever man look thus awry upon a point which he aimed to reply to; or did ever Hocuspocus strive with more nimble sleights to divert his spectatour's eyes from what he was about: than the Bp. does to draw of his Readers from the point in hand? In a word, all that can be gathered from him in order to this matter consists in these words [this pretended separation:] by which he seems to intimate his denial of any separation made in the a foresaid Principles; but it is so shameless and open an untruth, that he dares not own it in express terms; nor yet, (such is his shuffling) will he 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 rejection of that Government, which denominates them Schismatics; till they can render sufficient, that is, evident Grounds why they rejected it: for, otherwise, nothing is more weak, than to imagine that Governors should not declare themselves publicly and solemnly against the renouncers of their Authority; or, that a King should not proclaim for Rebels and incapable of any privileges from the commonwealth, those persons who already had disacknowledged his Right, and obstinately broken its laws. Either show us, then, that our Excommunication separated you from your former tenets, to wit, from holding those a foresaid Principles of Unity in faith and Government; or else grant that yourselves actually separated from them both, that is, from our Church. This, my Lord, is the separation which uniustifyed, makes a criminal Schism: Excommunication is only the punishment due to the antecedent crime.  
Order, which consists in Government being essential to a Church if intended to continue, it follows that since Christ intended his Church should continue, he constituted the order of the Church, otherwise he had not constituted a Church, since a Church cannot be without that which is essential, to a Church. Wherefore, seeing that which Christ instituted is of faith, it follows that order of Government is of faith, and so, must be, recommended to us by the same Rule that other points of faith are. Hence, speaking of the two Principles, one of Unity in faith, the other of Unity in Government, I affirmed that the truth of the latter is included in the former, and hath its Evidence from it. Must not he now be very quarrelsome, who can wrangle with such an innocent and plain truth?  
The jealous Bishop first alleges, 'tis done to gain the more opportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Pope's, into the ancient discipline of the Church. Not a jot, my Lord: the standing to this Rule, to wit, the immediate delivery of fathers to son's 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 tenor; or show that it ever could, as long as men adhered to that method. It must be either upon wit explications of word in the laws, or of ambiguous pieces of Antiquity, not upon this immediate delivery from hand to hand, (in which we place our Rule of faith) that encroachments are built. Had we, then, a mind to obtrude usurpations upon you, we had recurred to testimony-proofs, (the Protestants only method;) where with hath a large field to maintain a probability-skirmish of the absurdest positions imaginable: not to this Rule of so vast a multitude of eye-witnesses of visible things from age to age; Which Rule is as impossible to be crooked, as it is for a world of fathers to conspire to tell a world of Children this lie, 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 groundlessly quarrelsome. 'Tis against my making two Principles; one in doctrine, the other in discipline: whereas, every 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 be 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 'tis by him, one may dispute against the making several laws, and several Commandments, with the like Logic, 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, he imagines, because the truth of one depends on the other, therefore they ought not to be 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 general Principles of Euclid, without making any progress 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 sense?  
After he had been thus frivolously backward, he adds, that he readily admits both my first & second Rule, reduced into one in this subsequent form: those doctrines and that discipline, which we inherited from our forefathers as the Legacy of Christ & his Apostles, ought solely to be acknowledged for obligatory, and nothing in them to be changed that is substantial or essential. 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. We point them out a determinate form of Government, to wit, that of one supreme Bishop in God's Church: 'tis known what it means: 'tis known that the acknowledgement of that Government is now, and was at the time of the breach, the bond of Unity between those Churches which held that Government, of which the Church of England was one: 'tis 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 Unity in discipline. Again, 'tis known that we hold the voice of the Church, that is, the consent of Catholic fathers immediately attesting that they received this doctrine from their forefathers, infallible; and, that none cannot be ignorant of what their fathers teach them & bring them up in: Which immediate receiving it from fathers we 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 Noah, whether they broke that Principle of Unity in discipline (which 'tis evident they did, by renouncing the Pope's Authority) or that Principle of Unity in doctrine, to wit, Tradition, delivery, or handing down by immediate forefathers, (which 'tis evident they did, out of the very word, Reformation, which they own & extol; Or, instead of telling us what particular Rule of faith, what particular form of Government, they have introduced into God's Church in room of the former; He refers us to Platonic Ideas of both, to be found in Concavo Lunae; wrapping them up in such general terms, as he may be sure they shall never come to open light, lest by speaking out he should bring himself into inconveniences.  
Observe his words. Those doctrines & that discipline which we inherited from our forefathers, as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles, ought solely to be acknowledged for obligatory; and nothing in them is to be changed, which is substantial or essential. But, what and how many those doctrines are, what in particular that discipline is, what he means by Inheriting, what by forefathers, what by substantial: none must expect in reason to know: for himself, who is the relater, does not. Are those doctrines their 39 Articles? Alas, no: those are not obligatory, their best Champions reject them at pleasure. Are they contained in the Creed only? He will seem to say so sometimes, upon some urgent occasion: but then ask him, are the processions of the divine Persons, the Sacraments Baptism of children, Government of the Church, the acknowledging there is such a thing as God's written word, or Scripture, etc. obligatory? the good man is gravelld. In fine, when you urge him home, his last refuge will be, that all which is in God's word is obligatory: and then he thinks himself secure; knowing that men may wrangle with wit conjectures an hundred years there, ere any Evidence, that is, conviction, be 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, owned by Protestants to have come from Christ and his Apostles, as their Legacy, (for he gives us no other description of it than those general terms only;) and he is in as sad a case as he was before. Will he say, 'tis that of the secular power being Head of the Church, or that of Bishops? Neither of these can be: for, they acknowledge the french Church for their sister Protestant, and yet she owns no such forms of Government to have come from Christ, but that of Presbyters only; which they of England as much disown to have been Christ's Legacy. It remains, then, that the Protestants have introduced 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 only pay their adherents with terms in general, putting them of with words for realities, and names for things.  
Again, ask him what he means by inheriting: and he will tell us, if he be urged and pressed hard, (for, till then, no Protestant speaks out,) that he 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 be and not be at once.) But, that which he means by inheriting is, that your title to such a tenet is to be looked for in Antiquity; that is, in a vast Library of books filled with dead words, to be tossed and explicated by wits & critics: where he 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 be content to believe 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 learn their A. B. C. (for, such is immediate delivery of visible and practical points by forefathers;) to embrace another method, so 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 be able to find perfect satisfaction in it, or to choose 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, die, ere thou choosest or pitchest upon any faith at all.  
The like quibble is in the word forefathers, he means not by it immediate forefathers, as we do, (that would quite spoil their pretence of Reformation;) but, ancient writers: and, so, he hath pointed us out no determinate Rule at all, till it be agreed on whom those forefathers must be, and how their expressions are to be understood; both which are controverted, and need a Rule themselves.  
But the chiefest piece of tergiversation lies in those last words, that nothing is to be changed in those Legacies, which is substantial or essential: That is, when soever he and his follows have a mind to change any point, though never so sacred, nay, though the Rules of faith and discipline themselves; 'tis but mincing the matter and saying they are not substantial or essential, and then they are licenc't to reject them. We urge; the two said Principles of Unity in faith and discipline are substantial points & essential to a Church, if Unity itself be essential 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 renounced; this fact, therefore, of thus renouncing them concludes you absolute Schismatics and Heretics, till you bring demonstrative Evidence that the former Government was an usurpation, the former Rule fallible; only which Evidence can justify a fact of this nature.  
It is worth the Readers pains to reflect once more on my Ld of Derry's former proposition; and to observe, that, though white and black are not more different than he and we are in the sense of it, yet he would persuade his Readers he holds the same with us: saying, that he readily admits both my first and second Rule reduced into one, in this subsequent form, etc. and then puts us down general terms which signify nothing; making account that any sleight connexion made of air or words is sufficient to tie Churches together, and make them one. Just as Manasseh Ben Israel, the Rabbi of the late jews, in the close of his petition, would make those who profess Christ, and the jews, be of one faith; by an airy general expression, parallel to the Bishops, here, that both of them expect the glory of Israël to be revealed. Thus, dear Protestant, Reader, thou seest what thy best Drs would bring thee to: to neglect sense, and the substantial solid import of words; and, in stead thereof, to be content to embrace an empty cloud of general terms, hover uncertainly in the air of their own fancies. In a word either the sense of your contracted Rule is the same with that of our dilated one, or not: If not, than you have broke the Rule of faith held by the former Church, (unless you will contend this Rule had no sense in it but nonsignificant words only) and by consequence are flat Schismatics. But if you say 'tis the same, you are reuinced by the plain matter of fact, nay by the most undeniable force of self-evident terms: since no first Principle can be 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 disclaim their doctrine and discipline was not to inherit it.  
After he had told us that the Church of England and the Church of Rome both maintain this Rule of faith, (that is, indeed a different thing, but the same words;) he immediately disgraces the said Rule, by adding, that the question only is, who have changed that doctrine, or this discipline; we, or they? the one by substraction, the other by addition. Which is as much as to say, the pretended Rule is no Rule at all; or else that we do not agree in it, which yet he immediately before pretended; for, sure, that Rule can be no Rule to him that follows it and yet is misled, as one of us must necessarily be, 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 be, one of us must necessarily have receded from that Rule and proceeded upon another; ere he could embrace'an error, or differ from the other. It being known, then, and acknowledged that we hold now the same Rule as we 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 we continue in it.  
Next, he assures his Reader, that the case is clear; to wit, that we have changed that doctrine & discipline by addition. This he proves, by the wildest Topick that ever came from a rational head: Because the Apostles contracted this doctrine into a summary, that is, the creed; and the ancient Church forbade to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismal profession; whereas we 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? do not they hold that the Procession of the Holy Ghost, the Baptism of Infants, the Sacraments, etc. 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 be 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 we, by the same Logic, accuse the Church at the time of the Nicene Council; who pressed the word Consubstantial, to distinguish Catholics from Arians? nay, may not we, by the selfsame argument, charge his own Church, for making & pressing the profession of their 39 Articles, in which are many things (as he well knows) not found nor pretended to be found in the Apostles creed? What an incomparable strain of weakness 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, 'tis evident and acknowledged, that very many points were held anciently and ever, which are not put there? And what a self contradicting absurdity is it, to allege 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 received, 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 he might partly have corrected, had he reflected on his own words, [Baptismal 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 cognizance that they are affected to them and not to their Enemy's 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 called a symbol 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 jews. Afterwards, when other Adversaries of the Church, that is, Heretics, arose against points not found in that creed; it was necessary, upon occasion, to enlarge that Profession of faith or symbol, so 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 chimerical Geryon-shaped Church of England: or else he must grant that the Church, when such arise, must make new Professions or symbols to distinguish friends from those foes; unless she will admit promiscuously into her Bowels, Adversaries for friends; a thing able to destroy any Commonwealth, either Ecclesiastical or temporal. This is evident out of natural prudence; yet this is that which my Ld D. carps at, that when new up start heresies had risen, the Church should ordain such a Profession of faith and consisting of such points, as may stop the entrance of such into the Church. As then, if the reformed Congregation were to baptise one now, at age, and so make him one of their company, none can doubt but it were prudence in her (had she any Grounds to own herself to be a Church) to ask him such questions first, as should manifest he were not a Socinian, Anabaptist, or Papist, but Protestantlike 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 be 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 she might make a free denizon of her community, an arrant Adversary, who came in cloaked and unexamind to work her all the mischief he could. Yet, this due examination beforehand, the Bp. calls: changing of faith by addition; thus perpetually goes common sense to wrack, when Protestant Drs go about to justify their Schism; and, to make the nonsense more pithy, he calls this a clear case, that we have thus offended by addition.  
Again, he tells us, to confirm this, that the General Council of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismal Profession than the Apostles creed. Which is, first, a very round falsification and an open abuse of the Council. For, as may be 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, decrevit sancta, etc. These things being read, the holy synod decreed, that it should be lawful 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 gathered in the Holy Ghost at the City of Nice. Where, we see, the intention of the Council was no other than this, that they should avoid heretical creeds and hold to the Orthodox one; not to hinder an enlargement to their Baptismal Profession, as the Bishop would persuade us. Hence,  
His first falsification is that he 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 Baptismal profession: So, by the words, any more, which he falsely imposes to serve his purpose; making the Council strike directly at the enlargement of such Profession. Very good!  
His 2d is, that, to play Pope Pius a trick, he assures us, the Council forbids to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismal Profession; whereas, there is no news there of exacting, (but, of producing, writing, or composing false creeds) less of Baptismal profession. And, though the Council forbid this to be done, his qui volunt ad cog●itionem veritatis converti, 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) be Laym●n, let them be excommunicated, makes it impossible to relate to Baptism; unless the Bishop will say that, in those days, Laymen were Ministers of Baptism, or exacted, (as he phrases it) Baptismal Professions.  
His third falsification is, that he pretends the Council forbade to exact more than the Apostles creed: whereas, the Council only forbids creeds different from that which was defined 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 he 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 only prohibits the producing or teaching any thing contrary to the doctrine anciently established; as appears more plainly from that which follows concerning Carisius, Pari modo, etc. In like manner, if any either Bishops, Priests or Laymen be taken, (sentientes aut docentes,) holding or teaching Carisius his doctrine, etc. let them be thus or thus punished. Where you see nothing in order to exacting Baptismal professions, or their enlargments, as the Bp. fancies; but of abstaining to teach false doctrines which those Heretics had proposed.  
Ere we leave this point, to do my Ld D. right, let us construe the words of the Council according to the sense he hath given it, and it stands thus; that the holy synod decreed it unlawful for any [proffer, scribere; aut componere] to exact, [alteram] any more, or a larger, [fidem] Baptismal profession, [praeter eam quae a sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam Vrbem definita fuit] than the Apostles creed. Well, go thy ways brave Bp. if the next synod of Protestants do not Canonize thee for an Interpreter of Councils, they are false to their best interests: The cause cannot but stand, if managed by such sincerity, wit, and learning; as long as women prejudiced men and fools, who examine nothing, are the greater part of Readers.  
Having gained such credit for his sincerity, he presumes now he may be trusted upon his bare word: and then, without any either reason or Authority alleged, or so much as pretended, but on his bare word only, he assures the Reader, if he will believe him, that they still profess the discipline of the ancient Church, and that we have changed it into a sovereignty of power above General Counsels, etc. Yet, the candid man, in his vindication, durst not affirm that this pretended power was of faith with us, or held by all; but only, p. 232. alleges, first, that it is maintained by many; that is, that it is an opinion only, and then 'tis not his proper task to dispute against it, our own Schools and Doctors can do that fast enough and afterwards p. 243. he tells us, that these who give such exorbitant privileges to Pope's do it with so many cautions and reservations, that th●y signify nothing. So that the Bishop, grants that some only 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 be broken for it, and claps it upon the whole Church.  
After this he grants S. Peter to have been Prince of the Apostles, or first mover in the Church, in a right sense, as he 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 sense to correct it, imagined, that to move did in a sense right enough, signify to act; and so, the first mover meant the first Actor. We thought likewise that, when God was called primum movens, the first mover, those words did, in a very right sense, import activity and influence; not a primacy of order only, 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 sense of theirs shall be absolutely wrong, and this only right, which he and his fellows are pleased to fancy: who are so wonderfully acute, that, according to them, he that hath only Authority to sit first in Council, or some things, (which is all they will allow S. Peter and the Pope) shall, in a right sense, be said to move first or to be first mover.  
I alleged, as a thing unquestionable even by understanding Protestants, 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 successors of S. Peter, inherited his privileges, etc. as is to be seen p. 307. by any man who can read English. Now, the Bishop, who hath sworn to his cause that he will be a constant and faithful prevaricatour, omits the former pa●t of my proposition, and changes the business from an evident matter of fact and acknowledged by Protestants, (viz: that the Church of England's Principle was actually such, and such at that time) into the point and tenet itself, which is questioned and controverted between us. His words are these, p. 6. Thirdly h●e addeth that, [the Bishops of Rome, as successors of S. I●e er, inherited his privileges;] whereas he ought to have represented 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 he thought of it, by ●●her expressing a denial, or ● grant. But positivenes, even in things manifest and acknowledged, is a thing th● Bishop hates wi●h all his heart: for, were I or no said to any point, the discourse might proceed rigorously upon it, which would mar 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 privilege) in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome, that very year wherein this unhappy separation began Me thanks, it is not possible to avoid being absolute here. But, nothing is impossible to the Bp. he either will not speak out at all, or, if he does, it must be of no lower a strain than flat contradiction He tells us, first, that it cometh much short of the truth in one respect: and why? for the Pope's (saith he) exercised much more power in those countries which gave them leave, than ever S. Peter pretended to. So that according to the Bp. he did not exercise S. Peter's lesser power, because he exercised a power far greater, that is he did not exercise S. Peter's power, because he exercised S. Peter's power, and much more; which is as much as to say, Totum est minus parte, and more does not contain less A hopeful disputant, who chooses rather to run upon such rocks, then to grant that the Pope actually governed as supreme in those countries which were actually under him A point which it is shameful to deny, dangerous positively to confess; and therefore necessary to be thus blundered.  
Secondly, he tells us, that it is much more short of that universal Monarchy, which the Pope did then and doth still claim. And why? for (saith he) 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, etc. Are moderate expressions of shamelessness 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 he 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 exercised his power at that time even over those countries; as much as it can be expected any Governor can or should do over revolters, whom he cannot otherwise reduce. As, then, a Governor exercises his power over obedient subjets, by cherising them and ordering them and their affairs so as may best conduce to their common good; but cannot exercise it over contumacious and too potent Rebels, any other way than by proclaiming them Outlaws and incapable of privileges or protection from the laws of the Commonwealth: so, neither could it be imagined or expected by any rational man that the Pope, in those circumstances, though he were supposed and granted by both sides lawful Governor) could exercise power over them in any other way, h●n only in inflicting on them Ecclesiastical punishments or censures, and excommunicating or outlawing them from that Commonwealth which remained ob en● to him; as he Bp. complainingly grant; he did.  
Having thus shustled in every tittle of the sta●e of the question, he accuses his Refuter that he comes not near the true question at all. Can there be 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 actors, 〈◊〉 is, breakers, Schismatics, unless they can bring ●●ffic●ent reasons to warrant such a breach? But, let u● examine a lit●l● the ground of his Exception. The true question (saith he) is not, whether the Bishop of R●me had any Authority in the Catholic Church. Good Reader ask the Bp. whether his Refuter, or any Catholic, or even moderate Protestant, ever mou●d such a question: and, wh●ther it be 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 questioned 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 Metropolitan, in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarches; and all over, as the Bishop of an Apostolical 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 successor of S. Peter, deserve consideration and thanks too, if meant really: for, these words grant him an Authority more than patriarchal; nor a ●●y primacy only but an Authority all over, that is a power to act as the highest in God's Church and in any part of the Church, that is, an universal jurisdiction all over or over all the Church, at least in some cases. Now, in this consists the sustance of the Papal Authority; and had they of England retained still practically a subjection to this Authority, as thus charactered; they had not been excommunicated upon this score only. But, the misery is, that this our backfriend, after he hath given us al● this fair promising language, that the Pope's Authority is higher than patriarchal, (as the Climax in his discourse signifies;) that it is all over or universal; and lastly, that he hath this universal Authority as he is successor of S. Peter: after all this, I say, if he been pressed home to declare himself; as before he granted S. Peter the first mover in Church, and then told us that, in a right sense, it meant but a Primacy of order; so he will tell us the same of these flattering expressions, and th●t the words [Authority] doth not, in a right sense, signify a power to act as a Governor, (though all the world else understand it so) but only 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 he) is, what are the right bounds and limits of this Authority: and then reckons up a company of particularities, some true, most of them concerning the extent of the Pope's Authority itself and debated amongst our own 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 customs of whole nations, to deprive Princes of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their Allegiance, etc. Was ever such stuff brought by a Controvertist? or was ever man so frontless as to make these the true state of the question between us; that is, to pretend that our Church holds these things as of faith?  
To manifest more the shallowness 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 he is Head of the Church, that is, first mover in it, and that he hath Authority to act in it after the nature of a first Governor. This is held with us to be of faith, and acknowledged unanimously by all the faithful as come from Christ and his Apostles; so that none can be of our Communion who deny it: nor is this debated at all between Catholic & Catholic, but between Catholic and Heretic only. Hence, this is held by our Church as a Church; that is, as a multitude receiving it upon their Rule of faith, universal Attestation of immediate Ancestors, as from theirs, and so upwards as from Christ; and not upon critical 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 be held as a common opinion of the schoolmen, and (as such) embraced by many Catholics; yet, not by them as faithful, that is, as relying ●pon their Ancestors, as from theirs, as from Christ; but, as relying upon the learnedmen in Canon-law; and; implicitly, 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 he who holds or deems otherwise may still be held one of the Church or of the Commonwealth of the faithful: nor be unblamable for holding otherwise, if he have better reasons for his tenet than those other learned men had for theirs, as long as he behaves himself quietly in the said Commonwealth.  
Perhaps a parallel will clear the matter better. The acknowledgement of the former Kings of England to be supreme Governors in their Dominions was heretofore (as we may say) a point of civil faith, nor could any be reputed a good subject who denied this; in the undifputable acknowledgement of which consisted the substance of their Authority: But, whether they had power to raise ship money, impose subsidies, etc. alone and without a Parliament, belonged 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 we may say) a civil Schismatic to disacknowledge such extents of his Authority, so he admitted the Authority itself: I concieve the parallel is so plain, that it will make it's own application.  
This being settled, as I hope it is; so let it stand a while, till we make another consideration.  
A Controversy (in the sense which our circumstances determine it) is a dispute about faith; and so a Controvertist, as such, aught to impugn a point of f●ith; that 〈◊〉 he 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 be held of faith according to its substance, and not held of faith according to its extent; he ought to impugn it according to the substance of the said Government, and not its extent: otherwise, he totally prevaricates from the proper office of a Controvertist, not impugning faith but opinions, no● that Church as a Church and his Adversary; but, falsely supposing himself as it were one of that company, and to hold all the substance of its Authority, he 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 be thine own judge, whether he 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 only: and here, undertaking to correct his Refuter and state the question rightly, first grants, in very plain but wrong meant terms, the whole question, to wit that the Pope hath Authority over the whole Church as successor 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 he knows well enough are debated by the obedient and true members of that Commonwealth whence he is Outlawed and which he pretends to impugn.  
His 8th page presents the Reader with a great mistake of mine: and 'tis this, that I affirmed it was and is the constant belief of the Casholike world, (by which I mean all in Communion with the Church of Rome, whom only I may call Catholics) that these two Principles were Christ's own ordination recorded in scripture. Whereas, he 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 Pastors, till we all meet in the Unity of Glory, should be Christ's own Ordination, and recorded there likewise: Nor can I devise upon what Grounds he and his fellow-Bishops of England, who hold Scripture only the Rule of faith, can maintain their Authority to be iure divino, unless they hold likewise that it be there recorded, and be Christ's Ordination, that following Pastors succeed into the Authority of their predecessors.  
But the pretended mistake lies here, that whereas I said the Bishops of Rome inherited this privilege from S. Peter, m●aning that those who are Bp● of Rome being S. Peter's successors, inherited this power; he will needs take me in a reduplicative sense, as if I spoke of the Bishop of Rome, as of Rome: and then he runs on, wildly and boldly challenging me that I cannot show out of Scripture that S. Peter was at Rome, that our own Authors say S. Peter might have died at Antioch, and the succession into his power have remained th●re, etc. Answers so frivolous, so 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 omit that he picked these words, which he impugns here, out of a paragraph following a leaf after, which totally concerned a dangerous and fundamental point, as shall presently be seen; and so, it importing him to neglect it, he culled out and mistakingly glanced at these few loose words, which he thought by a device of his own he could best deal with, for a colour of his necessary negligence.  
What he adds of the Council of Chalcedon hath been answered an hundred times over, and by me, Schism Disarm. p. 109. 110. etc. nor deserves any reiteration, till he urge it farther; especially being so rawly put down. Only because he builds upon their giving equal privileges to Constantinople▪ without manifesting what those privileges were: we shall take leave to think that, as Rome still remained first in order, (as his late words granted, and Protestants confess) notwithstanding those equal privileges; so, for any thing he knows, it might still remain Superior in jurisdiction; and, till he evince that privileges in that place meant jurisdiction, to which the word will be very loath, he is far from bringing it to our question, or to any purpose.  
His next task is a very substantial and important one, striking at the Rule and Root of all our faith: yet, by voluntary mistaking no less than every syllable of it, he quickly makes clear work with it. He was told, that we hold our first Principle by this manifest Evidence, that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed, and, as long as it adhered to that method, nothing could be altered 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 inferior nature, which are neither so necessary to he known, nor firmly believed, nor so publicly and universally professed, nor derived downwards from the Apostolical age by such unin●or upted succession, doth produce no such certainty either of Evidence or adherence. Where.  
First, he knows, we 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 immediate 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 Unity 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. talks of Traditions of some particular persons, or some particular Churches: desirous to make his Readers believe we rely on such a Tradition and so defective as he expresses; that is, he makes account our pretended Tradition must not be styled universal, unless it take in those persons and those Church also who have formerly renounced and receded from this Rule of Tradition. Which is as much as if he had said, a thing cannot be absolutely white, unless it be black too.  
Secondly, we speak of believing, that is, of points of faith: but, the Bp. talks of opinions, and those not concerning ones neither, but (as he styles them) opinions of an inferior nature. And then, having, by this sleight, changed faith into opinion, he 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, etc. Is not this sincerely done and strongly to the purpose?  
Thirdly, he cants in these words [So necessary to be known.] I ask, are they necessary or no? If they be not necessary, why does he seem to grant they are, by saying only that they are not so necessary? But, if they be necessary, then why does he call them opinions only, and that too of an inferior nature? Can that be necessary to be held or known, which hath no necessary Grounds to make it either held or known? Opinions have neither.  
Fourthly, he speaks of points not so publicly professed: whereas, every point of faith is public and notorious; being writ in the hearts of the faithful by the teaching of their Parents and Pastouts, signed by all their expressions, and sealed 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? ancestors.  
Fifthly, he speaks of points not universally professed: that is, if any heretic, 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 be said to be universal, because that heretic 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 professed otherwise. The like service it would do an Arian or any other Heretic, to allege (as the Bp. does) that the Christian world must be united, otherwise the Tradition is not certain; for, as long as that Heretic has a mind to call himself and his friends Christians (which he will ever do,) so long he may cheaply cavil 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 & practical 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, etc. in those points of faith in which they differ from us) are not truly, but improperly, called Christians; neither can they claim any share in Tradition or expect to be accounted fellow-deliverers of faith, who have both formerly renounced that Rule and broached now doctrines against it, which like giddy whirlpools run crossly to that constantly-and directly flowing stream.  
Lastly, he requires to the Evidence and certainty of Tradition, that it be derived downwards from the Apostles, by such an uninterrupted succession. We 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 he pleases, from ten years to ten years; and we tell him that this Rule is a manifest Evidence, because 'tis impossible the latter age should be ignorant of what the foregoing age believed: He runs away from Tradition, or the delivering, to points delivered, and tells us they must come downwards from the Apostles uninterruptedly, ere they can be certain: Whereas, this point is confessed 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, we may say, 'tis evident from the very terms, that it could not come down uninterruptedly burr 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 he runs into, when he calls the Apostles creed a Tradition: since, he knows we speak of the method or way of conveying points of faith downwards; not, of the points conveyed. But, I am glad to see him acknowledge that the delivery of the Apostles creed by a visible practice is an undeniable Evidence that it came from the Apostles; If he reflect, he shall find that there is scarce one point of faith, 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 lawfulness of Invoking saints for their intercession, the lawfulness of Images, Praying for the Dead, Adoration of the B. Sacrament, etc. and, in particular, the subjection to the Pope as supreme 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 no less evident that, in the days of Edward the sixth, Q Elizabeth and her successors, neither the former Rule of Unity in faith, nor this second of Unity 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 he should be obliged to answer them, calls this down right narration of a matter of fact my Inference; and, for answer, tells us he holds both those Rules. Well shuffled my Ld pray let me cut. Either you mean you hold now the sense of those Rules, that is, the thing we intent by them; and than 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 only the same words taken in another sense, that is, quite another thing; and than you have brought the point, as your custom is, to a mere 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 Noah. Possumne ego ex te exculpere hoc verum? The Principle of Unity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome immediately before your Reform, was the facto the acknowledgement of the Pope's Authority as Head of the Church; the Principle of Unity in faith was, then, de facto the ineheriring from, or, the immediate Tradition of Ancestors: 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 Unity; therefore the facto you are flat Schismatics.  
As for what follows that there is a fallacy in Logic ●all'd of more interrogations than one, I answer that there is in deed such a fallacy in Logic, 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 merely in order, he knows well is a point of my faith, which I am at present defending against him, and have sufficiently expressed myself, p. 307. l. 1● etc. by the words first Mover ●o mean a Primacy to act first in the Church, and not to sit first in order only. The latter point is handled in this Treatise in its proper place.  
No sincerer is his 12. page than the former: I only put down, p. 308 what our tenet was, and he calls my bare narration my second inference; and, when he hath done, answers it only 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 only way to clear his Church from Schism is, either by disproving the former to be the necessary Rule of Unity in faith, or the latter the necessary bond of Government? for, if they: be such Principles of Unity, it follows inevitably that they, having broke them both, (as the matter of fact evinces) are perfect Schismatics; since a Schismatic signifies one who breaks the Unity of a Church, What says my Ld D. to this? this seems to press very close to the Soul of the question, and so deserves clearing He clears it, by telling us we are doubly mistaken, and that he is resolved to disprove neither; though, unless he does this, the very position of the matter of fact doth alone call him schismatic.  
But, why is he, 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 Rebel ought to give any reason why he did so; because he is accused of Rebellion by his lawful Governor. Very learnedly. Now, the truth is wheresoever there is a contest, each side accuses the other, and each side again defends itself against the the others accusations: but, that party is properly called the defendant, against which accusations or objections were first put; and that the Opponent or Aunswerer which first moved 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 actual Governor of usurpation, your former Rule▪ of faith of Erroneousnes: it follows evidently, that we were the parties first accused, that is, the defendants; you, the accusers or opponents: for, whoever substracts himself from a former actual Governor, and accuses not that Governor of something which he alleges for his motive of rising; that person, eo ipso, accuses himself: since than we never accused you of breaking from our Government till you had broke from it; and, you could not have broke from it, without first accusing the said Government, and objecting some reason against it, as the motive of your breaking: You must therefore oppose, and allege those reasons, and show them sufficient ones; else, your very fact of renouncing that former Government doth unavoidable convince you of Schism.  
Next, he tells us, that if the proof did rest on their sides, yet he does not approve of my advice. And, I dare swear in the Bps' behalf that he never spoke truer word in his life; and will be bound for him that he 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 Heretic speak out (saith S. Augustin) and you have h●lf-confuted him But, what reason gives he why he disapproves of my advice? Will he show us a more easy, efficacious or likely way to bring the dispute to a final Conclusion. His reason is, because, saith he, it is not we who have altered the doctrine or discipline which Christ lef● in the Church but they, etc. 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 altered the discipline left in the Church of England in K. H's days; and now you are to give a reason to justify this alteration. you tell 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 pressed 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 Unity to all ●hose that communicated in it; and, therefore, that you now rejecting it must either show it to be no necessary bond of Unity, or necessarily remain convinced of destroying Unity, that, of Schism. Me thinks a man who pretends to answer should either say I, or No; they are usvally the returns we make to questions But S Austin's saying is Oracle; no speaking out, he thanks you. He knew well enough that either part of the Contradiction owned would have some means to go about to disprove; which, by destroying all doubt in the case, would have destroyed his own and the Authority of all those who speak against Evidence. Altum silentium is all you can get from him; only, in the hard straight he is driven to of either saying nothing or nothing to the purpose, he tells you he is not obliged to answer, because he has not altered the discipline left by Christ to his Church of England in K. H. the 8th's days, of which my objection runs, 'tis false even to ridiculousness; for, I cannot imagine he fancies his Authority can so much over sway the simplicity of any Reader his book will meet with, as to hope to make him believe the Church of England in his Lordship's time had the same discipline she had in K. H's days. If he mean of the discipline left by Christ to the Primtive times, 'tis no less false and more impertinent: 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 Bishop's first Section with a narrower eye, I am confident he will perceive that (besides that he 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 revolving 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 he 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 me, by giving a glance back upon my words, p. 306. 307. where I affirmed that it would appear that Schism was justly 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 he hath replied to the first, which is the position of the case, hath already been shown: to wit, that he would not speak one positive word, I or no to a plain matter of faith; nor be willing to step forwards one step by answering directly to any thing which nearly concerned 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 showed that he, in reciting my charge, had purposely omitted that as loathe his Exceptions should be brought to the test of Reason, or have their sufficiency examined. And, to let thee see that he did this purposely, look Schism Disarmed p. 309. and thou shalt see the whole paragraph, which concerned 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 Ancestors should have had to introduce such an alteration. They must confess themselves guilty in continuing the breach, unless they can allege causes sufficient to have begun it, had the same ancient Religion descended to these days. For, the constant belief of the Catholic 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 do 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 rigorously evidencing or demonstrative; or else, that less than demonstrative reasons, that is, probable ones would serve: This would quickly have decided the business. 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 he 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 Bishop's right sense, is called 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 he styles it: grounding his violent presumptions 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 nonsencicall 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 he dares not own them for demonstrations,) are, consequently, in our case, trifles, toys, and nothing to the purpose: and therefore, as they cannot challenge any at all, so I ought not to wrong myself in giving them too large an Answer; unless in those places where they touch upon a point that is more important.  
In the first place he maintains, that, it many ways acquits the Protestants continuing the breach, because, not they, but the Roman-Catholikes themselves did make the first separation. We will omit the perfect nonsense of this plea; which equally acquits any Villain in the world, who insists in the steps of his forefather Villains. For, may not he argue against honest men by the same Logic, and say, that they are acquitted; because, not Villains, but they who were honest men formerly, begun first the Villainy: It being equally infallible and necessary, that he who first turned naught, was, ere he turned so, good before; as it is, that he who first separated was, ere he separated, united to that Church, that is, a Roman Catholic. But I have said enough of this, Part 1. p. 92. 93. therefore: let us now examine his reasons, why this many ways (as he says) acquits them.  
First, he says, 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 remained in their former faith; and the other Bps looked upon as Schismatics, by the obedient party. But yet, it might seem some kind of argument against us, did those, who were friends in all other respects, voluntarily oppose us in this, and out of a free and unbiased choice; as the Bp. must pretend, else he does nothing. Let us examine 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) he hath these words, It is easy to believe, that nothing but the apprehension of dangers, which hung overthem by a praemunire incurred by them, could probably have inclined them to it. Thus he. The, violent presumption, then of our guilt, which you imagine concluded hence, is turned into a just presumption, or rather a confessed Evidence, of the King's violent cruelty and their fearful weakness. Rare Grounds doubtless, to acquit you for being led by their Authority, or following their example.  
Secondly, he tells us that, though it do not always excuse a toto, from all guilt, yet it excuses a tanto, and lessens the guilt; to be misled by the examples and Authority of others, etc. Let us examine this, as applied to the Protestants. How could they think their example to be followed or their Authority to be relied 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 be followed, 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 awed them at the time of their fall and during the King's life, joined 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 be less culpable than their followers; according to the degrees of the provocations which press upon their weaknesses. Theirs we have seen to be 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 exposed them to it. Your continuance in Schism, compared to the motives of their fault, is, in a manner, gratis; All your reason, heretofore, of thus continuing being for your Livings and interest; and, at present, only a vainglorious itch to approve yourselves to your party for brave fellows; in railing against the Pope and defending a Chimaera bom●inans in vacuo (the Church of England) found no where save in the imaginary space of your own fancies▪  
Thirdly, he assures us, that, in this case, it doth acquit them not only 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 me, if I will not believe him, believe S. Austin; who says, that they who defend not their false opinions with pertinacity, but are ready to embrace truth and correct their errors when they find them, are not Heretics. I Answer, S. Austin says well; only obstinacy makes an heretic: and so far we believe 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 Heretics and Schismatics? The general words of the father signify nothing to your purpose; unless they be applied 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 acquitted from Schism: That is, he 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, 'tis evident they renounced those tenets which were the Principles of Unity to the former Church both in faith and Government: Reason tells thee, that such a fact is, in its own nature, schismatical; unless they can produce sufficient motives to justify it: Reason tells thee, that no motives less than certain, that is, demonstrative ones, can suffice to allege 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 irrational Principle, that is▪ from passion and vice: And, so, we cannot but judge them obstinate and, consequently, Schismatics; unless they can show us these sufficient, that is, demonstrative reasons to excuse their, otherwise manifestly schismatical fact: or, if we do, we must renounce the light of our own reason to do them an undeserved favour.  
Thus much in general. Now, as for this Bp. in particular; Thou hast seen him shuffle up and down when he should have answered 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. 'Tis by these evident testimonies of thine eyes, these undeniable verdicts of thy reason, Reader, by which thou must judge of these men, whether they be carefully inquisitive after & readily embrace the truth, or rather be obstinate Schismatics; and not by the dark holes of their consciences; which they assert to be sincere by their bare sayings only; obtrude them, thus weakly authorised upon they easy credulity, and then tell thee thou must believe S. Austin that they are guiltless 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. He replies: what then were Watham and Heath, etc. all Protestants? Then, My Ld (which is only the question between us) your argument was naught: for, let them be accidentally what they will, you cannot conclude them no Protestants from the persecuting Protestants; as long as 'tis shown and known, that those who were Protestant's did the same. Secondly, if they were Protestants, he demands, of which sect they were? I answer, that, as, between every species of colour which we have names for, there are hundreds of middle degrees which have no names; or, as, in a perpetual motion, there are millions of unnamed proportions sowed all along in its progress, to whose quantities we 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 so petite and minute, that they have not deserved a name from the world. I see the Bp. mistakes us and his own sect; for he makes account the Protestant Profession and its subordinate sects are fixed things, which may be 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 imagine one notion to fit the word Protestant. 'Tis ever in motion, like the rolling sea, and therefore hath such an alloy of no ens in it, that it admits no positive definition; but, must be 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, & reform in that point:) it follows, that they were Protestants, though the newborn thing was not as yet christened with any other name than that common one of Reformation▪ But, my Ld. D. makes account that none can be a Protestant, unless he hold all which the now-Protestants do: Whereas, 'tis 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 shamefulness; ere the world could be prepared to receive or men's minds apt and audacious enough to broach new ones. First, they renounced one point, than another, and so forwards, till at length they have arrived to Quakerism; which therefore is the fullgrown fruit of the Reformation.  
Thirdly, whereas I told him, those Bishops, by renouncing the Pope, held the most essential point of their Reformation, and so had in them the quintessence of a Protestant: The Bp. first, calls this, our Reformation; as if we had not ever held them Schismatics, that is, separated from our Church, for doing so. Since, then, they went out from us, by that fact; they left to be of us: and, if they were not of us, how was it our Reformation, in any other sense, than as the Rebellion of those who were true subjects before is to be imputed to those who remain true subjects still? was ever common sense so abused? Next, he brags, that, than (to wit, if renouncing the Pope be essential to a Protestant) the Primitive Church were all Protestants; which is only said, and flatly false: that then, all the Graecian, Russian, Armenian, Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day; which is only said, again, and partly true, partly false, and that which is true only steads him so far, as to evince that the Protestants are not the only men but have fellow-Schismaticks: And lastly, that then, they want not store of Protestants even in the bosom of the Roman Church itself; which (to speak moderately) is an impudent falsehood, 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 Unity of Government in our Church, and, by consequence, the Rule of Unity of faith, which Grounds and asserts the former; that is, such a man renounces and breaks from all the Unity 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 be intimately united to her still, no understanding but the BPs can reach; which, as Mithridates could use poison for his daily food, can, without difficulty, digest contradictions, and finds them more connatural and nutritive to his cause than the solidest demonstrations.  
Now, if my Ld D. be not yet satisfied with my reasons, p. 311. that the renouncing the Pope is essential to Protestantism; to which yet he 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 sense it self to express this; calling this disclaiming the Pope's power the Bottom upon which the foundation of Reformation was laid, that is, the foundation of their foundation, their fundamental of fundamentals. Now then, how those Bishops should not be then Protestants, who held the fundamental of fundamentals of Protestantism, passes my skill to explicate, and, as I am persuaded, my Lds, too.   

Sect. 3.  
How my Ld 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 we accuse them, as an undeniable Testimony for them. Likewise, how he produces for his chief Plea a Position opposite both to his own and our party's acknowledgement, nay, to the very eyesight of the whole world; twisting in itself 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 ground for dividing from the Church; which was this; because, in the separation of England from Rome, there was no now law made, but only their ancient liberties vindicated. This I called (as I could do no less) notoriously false, and impudence itself; alleging that a law was made, in H. the 8th's time, and an oath invented, by which it was given the King to be Head of the Church, and to have all the power which the Pope did, at that time, possess in England. He asks, if this be the language of the Roman Schools? No, my Ld, it is and aught to be the language of every sincere man who bears any respect to truth, shame, or honesty, against those who are professed and sworn Enemies of all three; in case his circumstances have put him upon the task to lay such persons open and confute them. He appeals to any indifferent Christian judge. I decline not the Tribunal; nay more, I shall be willing to stand to the award of the most partial Protestant living, who hath but so much sincerity as to acknowledge the Sun's shining at noonday, or that the same thing cannot both be & not be at once. But.  
First, he goes about to acquit himself, by confessing that he said no new law was made then; but denying that he said no new statute was made. We will not wrangle with him about the words; only, 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,) we Englishmen use to term a law: if then there were a new statute made (as he confesses,) I concieve I have not wronged in the least the common language of England, to call it a new law. But, his meaning is, that King H. the 8th did no new thing when he renounced the Pope's Authority, but what had been done formerly; and therefore.  
Secondly, he 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, he quotes two of his own party to prove he said right; and two Protestants to speak in behalf of Protestants. Convincing proofs, doubtless against us.  
Thirdly, he promises to make it appear undeniably. Whence, or from what Authority? from the very statute itself; which says, That England is an Empire, and that the King as Head of the body politic, consisting of the Spirituality and temporality, hath plenary power to render final justice for all matters. That is, he quotes the schismatical King himself and his schismatical Parliament, (who made this statute,) to speak in their own behalves. Does such a trifler deserve a Reply? who, in a dispute against us, citys the authorities of those very persons against whom we dispute; nay, that very Act of theirs which we are challenging to have been schismatical: and relies upon them for undeniable Testimonies.  
Fourthly, he alleges another statute, made in the 24. of King H. the 8th: the best he could pick out, you may be sure; yet, there is not a syllable in it concerning spiritual jurisdiction; directly, that is, not a syllable to his purpose. 'Tis 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 its Regality, and to no other; and ought not to be submitted to the Pope. We are disputing about spiritual jurisdiction, and whether it were due to the Pope: and, the Bp. brings a statute which fpeaks of the Crown of England itself, as not to be submitted to the Pope, as touching its Regality; that is, a statute which expressly speaks of temporal jurisdiction. He tells us, that Ecclesiastical greivances are mentioned in that statute; but slightly omits so much as to name them, much less to urge them; which were they worth it, we may be sure he would have done with a triumph. And, besides, he knows we hold every good King is to take order to see Ecclesiastical grievances remedied, and the Canons of the Church observed: Nay, he knows (if he knows any thing) our own Lawyers grant that Ecclesiastical affairs sometimes fall under temporal power indirectly; as, on the other side, temporal affairs fall indirectly under the Ecclesiastical. Yet, that there is any more than this, nay even so much in this statute my Ld D. hath not shown us; and, if we will be judged by the words of the statute which he citys, they look quite another way. But, what matters it what this statute says? being made two years after his unlawful 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 concealed some of his particulars; he knows, I undertook no more than to answer the substance, and to show that such kinds of particularities were not worth alleging: as I did in this very place, and shall do again presently more amply.  
Fifthly, he quarrels with me for calling his Authorities, mere Allegations, which he tells us are authentic Records, etc. whereas my words were only these, (p. 311. l. 30.) that Pope's pretences were not admitted, etc. Now, I concieve, a Record or any other Authority alleged, is an Allegation; which was the word I used: the word [mere] was merely his own fiction, to gain an occasion to cavil; as the place now cited, where my words are found, will inform the Readers eyes.  
These straws being stepped over, with which the learned Bp. thought to block up our passage; We come to the point itself. Whether King H. the 8th did any more than his Ancestors. My Ld of D. in his vindication; to show he did no more or made no new law, gathers up Instances from our former laws and reiterates them here, (though sometimes he uses a phrase louder than h●s proofs) how the Pope's were curbed or limited in their pretences. We answered, that, to limit an Authority implies an admittance of it, in cases to which the restraints extend not: He replies, that this (meaning those laws) was not merely to limit an Authority; but to deny it (p. 20. l. 20.) yet, in the next page, he denies not equivalent laws in france, spain, Germany, Italy, and, in his (vindication (p. 73. l. 7. 8. etc.) he affirms that the like laws may be found in Germany, Poland, france, spain, Italy, sicily, and, if we will trust Padre Paolo, in the Papacy itself. These things being put, granted, and confessed, from his own words, I shall now appeal, even to the Bps 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 Ancestor Kings had done before him. For.  
First, this is opposite to the common notion and general opinion of the whole world, both Catholics, Protestants, Puritans, and of what ever sect or sort: who ever deemed Henry the 8th to be the first King of England who renounced the Pope's Supremacy and challenged it to himself: Nor had they ever that conceit of France, Spain, Italy, etc. 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 natural thoughts: though, when they are put to it to defend a desperate cause, artifice wrongs nature and puts some of their nonplussed 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 Hallelujahs 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 groaned under this yoke; that is, that, till now, the Pope's Headship was acknowledged here; and, by consequence, that K. H. the 8th did more than his Ancestors did formerly, when he 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 confessed by themselves: for, it is impossible and contradictory there should be a Reformation in any thing which was not otherwise before. It was, therefore, otherwise in England before K. H. the 8th's time, notwithstanding all these former power-limiting laws alleged by the Bp. and consequently, 'tis 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 confessed by themselves, and particularly by Dr. H. (of Schism p. 132.) in these very words, For the matter of fact, it is acknowledged that, in the reign of K. H. the 8th, the Papal power in Ecclesiastical affairs was, both by Acts of convocation of the Clergy and by statutes or Acts of Parliament, cast out of this Kingdom. This, I say, being confessed; and it being also evident in terms, that nothing can be said to be cast out of a place unless before it were in it: 'tis likewise evident in terms, that this power was in England before, notwithstanding the former laws, cited by my Ld 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 only 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 be pretended to have cast out the Pope's Supremacy, and to have begun a Reformation: which yet we never heard pretended, and he must show us when and how this Authority of the Pope in England twinklingly went out and in again; otherwise it could never be said to be cast out a fresh in K. H's reign.  
Sixthly, this position of his is particularly opposite, also, to the common consent of all Catholic countries, (in which notwithstanding the Bp. affirms there are found equivalent laws;) who all looked on K. H. the 8th, after those Pope renouncing Acts, as a Schismatic, and on England, both then and ever since, as schismatical. Now, that they should esteem and abhor England as schismatical, for doing the same things themselves also did, is against common sense and impossible.  
Seventhly, since (just vindication, p. 73. l. 8.) he quotes Padre Paulo, that the like laws were to be found in the Papacy itself: and 'tis perfect nonsense to affirm that, in the Papacy, of which the Pope is both spiritual and temporal Governor, he should not be held for Head of the Church: 'tis most manifest that the like laws in other places, and in particular amongst our Ancestors in England, did not take away from him that Headship in Ecclesiastical matters; and, by consequence, that K. H. the 8th, who denied him that Headship, did something new which his Ancestors had not done, and, when he enacted this, created new law. 'Tis most manifest, likewise, that those like laws in the Papacy are only to distinguish the Pope's spiritual power, there, from his temporal, that is, to limit its bounds, not to deny it: and, consequently, those mutually-like laws in other countries and in England formerly, did only limit it likewise: Whence follows inevitably, that K. H's law, which totally abolished, renounced, and denied it, was of another far different strain, and new law.  
Eightly, this position is demonstratively convinced of falsehood, by the evident and acknowledged 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 universal 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, he was held, by the party which adhered to that law, no Head of the universal Church, nor reverenced 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 equal modesty, be 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 air; wrangling, pro and con, why K. H. cast out the Pope's Authority here: whenas, (according to this illuminated Adversary of mine) he had actually no Authority there, at that time, to cast out.  
Lastly, this position is so thriving an absurdity, that, from nonsense and contradiction, it prosperously proceeds to perfect madness and fanaticknes; and comes to this, that there neither is nor ever was a Papist country in the world. For, since 'tis 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 renounced the Pope's Authority: Again, since, according to the Bp. the same laws were formerly made received, and executed in England; it follows, that our Ancestors equally renounced the Pope's Authority also, and so could be no Papists neither: and, lastly, since he grants equivalent laws infrance, Spain, Italy, Sicily, Germany, Poland, etc. it follows by the same reason, that those countries are not Papists neither, no, not the very Papacy itself. And, so, this miraculous blunderer hath totally destroyed 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 intent to breed a due apprehension in thee of the weakness of his cause and falsehood of this man, than appeal to thy judgement, whether any mad man, or born fool could have stumbled upon such a piece of non sense? Dost 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 vizard 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 alleging such sublimated nonsense for a sufficient excuse or ground; when the acknowledged fact of schismatizing and renting God's Church, cries loudly against them: nay more, (since less motives and reasons cannot justify such a fact, nor a continuance of it) to bring such an heap of contradictions, for perfect Evidences and demonstrations?  
Pardon me you, whose weaker or seldomer reflections on the certainty of faith, and, by consequence, of the certainty of an eternal concernment in these kind of Controversies, make you think courtesy violated by such home-expressions; which may breed a smart reflection, and stir up a more perfect consideration in the Readers mind. Examine my harshest words in the utmost rigour, as applied to his Demerits; and, if they exceed, hold me for blamed; if not, then think, (as reason grants) that it is equally moderate, (but far more necessary) to call great and wilful faults by their right names of Cozenage, impudence, etc. if they deserve them; as 'tis to call smaller lapses by theirs of a mistake or an oversight. How can it ever be hoped that Truth should be righted; as long as her Adversaries may take the liberty to act impudently against her, and her Defenders must be afraid to tell the world their faults and to say what they do?  
Again, were this shameless position of this Bps some odd saying on the by, or some petty branch of his discourse, it deserved less animadversion: but, 'tis the substantiallest part of his vindication, where he huddles together many laws, which, de facto, consisted with the acknowledgement of the Pope's Authority both in England and other Catholic countries, to parallel K. H's which were absolutely inconsistent with it, and to show that K. H. did no more than his Ancestors and other Catholics did. So that, he alleges this as a chief ground of their vindication, and we shall see again afterwards an whole Section built on this one particular ground. Now, had he 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 airy fancy of some odd Crotchet of his own head (as was Dr. H's conceit of the Apostles Exclusive Provinces,) it had been to be pitied, if sprung from weakness, or laughed at, if from wilfulness: but, to ground his vindication, that is, to build his and his adherents security from Schism and eternal damnation, on the mere vacuum of non sense and perfect contradiction, confutable by the contrary tenet, acknowledgement and sight of the whole world's eyes; is such a piece of shamelessness 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 be understood, etc. all which the Bp. omits, though he press the bare words; it belongs to Canon and secular Lawyers to scuffle about them, not to me: I hold myself to the lists of the question, and the limits of a Controvertist. And,  
Whenas he asks me, what lawful jurisdiction 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, etc. 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 we see de facto that he is acnowledged and exercises jurisdiction in Catholic counttries or else confess that they retain still something, notwithstanding those equivalent laws, which you renounced. This something, which they still retain more than you do, is that which makes you Schismatics 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 just accusation against you: that, Whereas such and so many strong curbs were set by the former laws of England (as are also in Catholic countries) to secure you from the least fear of any extravagant encroachments nay by which you confess here p. 36. they kept their privileges inviolated, yet, your desperately-seditions humour could neither be contented with that freedom from too much subjection which your own forefathers and all other countries then in Communion with you enjoyed, but you must quite extirpate the inward Right itself, totally abolish and renounce the very substance of th● former Ecclesiastical Government, and cast it out of the Kingdom.   

Sect. 4.  
My Ld of Derry's senseless plea from the Church of England's succeeding the British Church in her pretended exemptions from foreign jurisdiction, and the uniustifiablenes of those pretensions. The perfect weakness 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 foreign jurisdiction for the first 600. ye●rs. Now, his book being entitled a vindication of the church of England, to show this whole process frivolous I asked what this belonged to us; unless it be proved that their practics were an obliging precedent to us? To show more the impertinency of this allegation; I denied, that the Church of England hath any title from the Britannic Churches, otherwise than by the Saxon Christians; who only were our Ancestors, and by whose conquests and laws all that is in the Britannic world belongs and is derived to us. The Bp. replies: yes, well enough? and, why? first (saith he) Wales and Cornwall have not only a local but a personal succession; and therefore no man can doubt of their right to the privileges of the Britannic 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 be what it will, it follows not that the body of England (of which our Controversy is) hath any such privileges by descending from Cornwall or Wales. Again, 'tis evident that for these many hundred years, they acknowledged the Pop'es' Authority as much as England. And lastly, 'tis a clear case, they were under those which were under the Pope. But, the wily Bp. being asked an hard question, to wit, whether the Church of England had any title from or dependence on the Britannic Churches, answers quite another matter, and then tells us he hath done well enough.  
Secondly, he says, that there is the same reason for the Scots and Picts, who were no more subjected to foreign jurisdiction than the Britan's themselves. I answer none of the Picts are now extant but totally exterminated, & so no succession from them: And, as for the Scots, what do they concern the Church of England's vindication, our purpose, or my question; unless he can show, which he 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 he tells us he does well enough, all is well.  
Thirdly (he should have said first, for, the two former answer are nothing to the purpose,) he tells us, that, among the saxons themselves, the great Kingdoms of Mercia and Northumberland were converted by the ancient Scots, and had their Religion and Ordination first from them, afterwards among themselves, without any foreign dependence; and so were as free as the Britons. where, all the force lies in those words, [without any foreign dependence] which he obtrudes upon us on his own credit only, without a word of proof: or, if there be any shadow of reason for it there, it must be this, that ●hey were converted by the ancient Scots, which himself tells us, two pages after, is nothing at all to jurisdiction. But, that which is of main importance is, that he brings, here, no proof, that the Britons and Scots and Picts had no foreign dependence, save his own word only: And, the trifles he brings afterwards are of less credit than even his own words; as will be seen when they come to scanning.  
Fourthly, he assures us, ●●at, after the Conquest, throughout the rest of England, a wo●●d of British Christians did still live mixed with the saxons. And how proves he, this? because otherwise the saxons had not been able to people the sixth part of the Land. I ask, did he measure the Land, and number the saxons? If not, how does he know, or how can he affirm this? Or how does he prove the Land must necessarily be peopled, as fully as before, immediately after a Conquest so universal and cruel? Our historians tell us that, to avoid their barbarous cruelty which spared none, the ancient Britain's retired into Wales: yet he would persuade us, both without and against all history, that a world stayed behind; and this, not because the saxons stood in need of them (as he pretends,) who as 'tis 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 remained still in their former homes, how can the Bp. make any advantage of it? Thus: Who can deny (saith he) those poor conquered Christians and their Christian posterity, though mixed with saxons, the just privileges of their Ancestors? A compassionate man! who speaks a great deal of tenderhearted nonsense, rather than he will seem unmerciful, not to the ancient Britons (as he pretends,) but to his own cause; which he shows to be good-naturd, at least, though it be destitute of reason: for, unless he can show,) which yet never was pretended by any Protestant or man of common sense) that those who remained had yet British Bishops amongst them; or, unless he can pretend that they remained not subject to the Bishops of the saxons; it is a madness to imagine those few lay people should inherit those former supposed privileges: 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 Governors were subject is taken away: And the Bps merciful 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 Ecclesiastical and temporal, and to enjoy the privileges 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; 'tis this, that the saxon Conquest gave them as good title to the privileges, as to the Lands of the Britons. As if he made account, that Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is a thing of that nature as to be won by the sword; or that the Saxons could plunder the Britons of their spiritual privileges as well as of a bag of money. But, the jest is, he would have those privileges at once go into Wales, with the British Bishops, and stay at home in England: not considering that Ecclesiastical privileges are things inherent in men, that is, in the Ecclesiastical Governors, as enjoyers or else as conservers and dispensers of them to the people; and, in the Governed, as subject to those Governors and laws; not, in stones, woods and mountains, as he fancies. Again, whereas those privileges originally belong to Ecclesiastical Governors and are annexed unto them as such, as they are supposed to do in the Bps case; they cannot be transmitted to posterity but by a succession into the Authority of the former Governors: 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 privileges from them; and, by consequence, that his pretence of it is groundless and impertinent.  
What is said hitherto was to show the inconsequence of deriving those privileges from the British to ●he English Church, in case the British had any such privilege 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, he tells me, that, ere I can allege the Authority of the Council of Sardica, I must renounce the divine Institution of the Papacy: and why? for (said he) 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 Papal power itself, or its Institution; but concerning Appeals only. Next, since we call that of divine Institution which Christ with his own mouth ordained; and never any man made account or imagined that Christ came from heaven to speak to the after Pope's, and so give them a Primacy; but▪ that he gave it by his own mouth to S. Peter, whiles he lived here on earth: This, I say, being evidently our tenet; and the Council never touching this point at all; what a weakness is it to argue thence against the divine Institution of the Papacy, and to abuse the Council, saying, that it submitted this to the good pleasures of the fathers?  
Secondly, he asks, how does it appear that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon? which a little after he calls my presumption: And truly, I shall ever think it a most just presumption, that they, who confessedly sat in the Council, assented to what was ordained by the Council in which they sat (as was their duty) unless some objection be alleged to the contrary; as the Bp brings none.  
Thirdly, he says the Council of sardica was no general Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed; as they were before the making of that Canon. What means he by the Eastern Bishops? the Catholics, or the Arians? The Arian Bishops indeed fled away, fearing the judgement of the Church, as Apol. 2. & ep. ad solitarios S. Athanasius witnesses: but how shows he that any of the 76. Eastern Bishops, were gone, ere this Canon, (which is the third in that Council) was made? So that, my Ld of Derry is willing to maintain his cause, by clinging to the Arians against S. Athanasius and the than Catholic Church (as he does also in his foregoing Treatise, p. 190. 191) denying, with them, this to have been a general Council, because his good Brother Arians had run away from it, fearing their own just condemmnation.  
Fourthly, he says the Canons of this Council were never received in England or incorporated into the English laws. I ask, has he read the British laws in those times? if not, for any thing he knows, they were incorporated into them; and so, according to his former Grounds, must descend down to the English. But, we are mistaken in him: his meaning is only that the advantages and privileges should be inherited from the Britons, not their disadvantages or subjection: So sincere a man he is to his cause, though partial to common sense.  
Lastly (saith he) this Canon is contradicted by the great general Council of Chalcedon, which our Church receiveth. Yet it seems he neither 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 he will not find any repealing of the Sardica Canon expressed there: It must therefore be his own deduction, on which he relies; which, till he puts it down, cannot be answered. As for their Church receiving the Council of Chalcedon; the Council may thank 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 be sure to be 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 deprive it of all its Authority.  
He subjoins, there appears not the least footstep of any Papal jurisdiction exercised in England by Elentherius: (I answer nor any certain footstep of any thing else in those obscure times:) but the contrary: for, he referred 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 he 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 be not counterfeit:) But, now we have lost the candid conditional [If,] and are grown absolute. Whence we see, that the Bp. according as he 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 ifnot counter feited testimony is become one of his demonstrations, to clear himself and his Church from Schism.  
Now, though our faith relies on immediate Tradition for its only and certain Rule, and not upon fragments of old Authors: yet, to give some instances of the Pope's jurisdiction anciently in England, I alleged 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 Ld answers, that converting and ordaining, etc. are not acts of jurisdiction: yet himself says here, p. 193. that all other right of jurisdiction 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 'tis plain he makes these two to be rights of jurisdiction. So necessary an attendant to error is self contradiction and nonsense. But the point is, he leaves out those words I relied on [Vice sua, in his own stead,] which showed, that it belonged to his office to do it. These words omitted, he tells us, that he hath little reason to believe either the one, or the other: that is, he refuses to believe S. Prosper a famous and learned father, who lived near about the same time and was conversant with the affairs of the Pelagians; and chooses to rely rather on an old obscure Author, whence no prudent man can Ground a certainty of any thing, and which, if he would speak out, himself would say he thought to be counterfeit.  
What follows in his 25. page is only his own sayings? His folly in grounding the Pope's Supremacy on Phocas his liberality hath been particularly answered by me heretofore, Par●. 1. Sect. 6. whether I refer him.  
I found fault with him for leaving the Papal 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 he runs away from the whole question. First, he observes how readily we decline all manner of discourse concerning the Pope's patriarchal power. When 'tis not the question, we do; as any man, who understands what it is to dispute, would: But, does he ever find that we decline it when 'tis the question? I suppose, by this time, my largeness in handling it in this foregoing treatise, Part. 1. Sect. 15. hath corrected his wrong apprehension in that point. Next, he is puzzled to know the reason of this, but he may well conjecture (he says,) that 'tis because we find that our spiritual Monarchy, and a patriarchal dignity are inconsistent in the same subject. What insuperable difficulties the Bp's sooth-saying fancy proposes? As if it were so 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 Superior: what greater difficulty he imagines, that a Primate and an higher, (that is, a Papal) power should join in one person, than there is that a Primacy, that is, the highest in that continent, should be thus linked with an inferior dignity in the same continent, needs a revelation from the fancy that first dreamt it. Lastly, he's is shrewdly peremptory, and shuts up thus, And yet, a Patriarch the Pope was, and so always acknowledged to be, and they cannot deny it. Is not this a pleasant man to wanton it thus with a needle's cruelty; who puts us upon the rack, and will make us by force confess a truth, which himself knows every Catholic in the world ever granted, held, and maintained? And, what weak-iudging Reader, seeing such confident expressions, would not remain astonished 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 strokes the hissing air?  
Amongst other proofs of the British liberties, (as the BP. tells us here,) he produced the answer of Dinoth to Austin; which he deems so choice and rare a proof that he reiterates it, and with new vigour insists on it here: gleaning those exceptions he thought the easiest, from this treatise, my former against Dr. H. and partly from the Appendix to the Manual of Controversy.  
My first exception, in this place, was, that the word Pope was not then used alone to signify the Bp. of Rome: He quotes Bellarmin against me, and (so wise a man he is) expects that Catholic Writers shall be of the same mind in all things, even in controvertible and indifferent point, that is, he makes account there are neither Catholic Schools, nor that any difficulties occur in Historians; nor, to come nearer the point, that Catholics 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 be neither Vrbis Romae or any such like expression immediately conjoined to the word Papa, yet, which is equivalent, the comitant circumstances sufficiently determined 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 he had received from Pope Leo. So far then is the word Papa in that place from being emphatical or expressive of the BP. of Rome, taken singly and alone; that it was rather, rigorously speaking, a needle's word as found in that place.  
My second exception against their being called Bishops of Caerleon, after the removal of the seat to S. David's, was not put by me in this place nor urged against him at all, but against Dr. H. But, conceptum sermonem retinere quis potest? though it concerned not his Province he must still needs be doing. He had found by chance an odd testimony, (the best Minerva of a word stuffed brain;) and he was with child till he had brought it to light. Nor hath he yet any thing to take of my exception, besides one testimony of an historian, (for Sir Henry's is either built on the welsh paper or on this same Author's words:) and, on the other side, himself must confess, that it is a passage unparallelled in history, perhaps ever since the beginning of the world, that a seat should be 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 says. Again, had the name Caerleon been translated likewise to Menevia, that is, had Menevia changed its name into Caerleon, it had been more likely; or, had Caerleon's Arch Bishops, only for some conveniency, resided at Menevia, and the right of jurisdiction belonged still to Caerleon, it might more easily be conceived feisible: but, that the seat itself should be translated, and Menevia be made the lawful Metropolis, and yet not own herself for such, but let a cashiered 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. David's 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 powel, a Protestant, who set forth Giraldus (the BP's Author,) in his marginal 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 confessed history; & so, 'tis utterly undeserving any credit. Add, that, grant the name of Caerleon had been retained by them, so that the Bishops of menevia were called Bishops of Caerleon; yet they could not but very unhandsomely be, called BP's of Caerleon upon uske. This particular exactness then in this expressing the locality of his Bishopric, which is found in the Abbot's words, argue that the counterfeiter of this paper imagined this Bishop still to have resided near uske at Caerleon, after the local translation of the seat thence; and so, still it remains an argument of its imposture.  
My third exception, as he calls it, is such that the Bp. cannot, he confesses, find the edge of it. Perhaps the bluntness 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 employed, it was made for this alone. He asks how I know Sr H. found no other Antiquities in it? and alleges, that there might be many more, and yet not proper for a Collection of Ecclesiastical Councils. Pray does Sr H. neglect all passages which are not of this grave nature? How came he then to take notice of this toy? was this single Abbot either pretended to be a Council, or these words of his some authentic act of a Council? I conceive you will not conclude it was; otherwise Dr H. would not have undervalved it as inconsiderable, and a proof you could unconcernedly and easily partwith as he does in his Appendix, p 168. How then was it so proper for à Collection of Ecclesiastical Councils? whereas the Collection might have been entire and perfect, though this had been omitted. Since than Sir H. who adored any new revived piece of Antiquity, found nothing in this manuscript worth mentioning but this; in all likelihood it was made for this only. Secondly, he 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 authorised to my hand, nor hath any just exceptions against it: This poor manuscript hath nothing at all to assert its Authority, and lies under many and very suspicious Exceptions. But, in case one, who holds not his creed, should be dealt with to believe it only 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 authorised by any testimony asserting it to have been writ by the Apostles, but only that it might be it was; and against this very might be 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 only this creed is pretended to be evinced, had nothing in it worth note but this very creed: that man were very weak and foolish, to believe his creed thus slenderly proposed or rather totally unauthorised; nor can they be judged less weak who can think such a manuscript, absolutely unauthentick and manifoldy excepted against, a fit Ground to build their assent upon to clear themselves from Schism, that is, to secure themselves from, otherwise, due damnation, as themselves confess. Will he have me reckon up again the exceptions against it? To omit then what hath been said here,  
First, it is only Sir H's conjecture, that M. Moston's manuscript was transcribed out of an ancienter Copy: now, if this mere conjecture happen to fail, the wise business is at an end.  
Secondly Sir H. who brought it to light, confesses, he knows not when and by whom that manuscript was composed: which is as much as to say, it hath nothing to authorise it.  
Thirdly, 'tis only Sir 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 just presumption of its being forged to countenance his or his successors 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. divers instances of which are found in few lines, which evidences a forgery.  
7ly, the Protestants are challenged to have abused it in the translation; and yet (so brave a proof it is) they are glad to add paraphrases to make sense 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 be seen in the Appendix to the Manual of Controversies.  
9ly, considering the foresaid exceptions; as also that an English line is put always word by word under each welsh line, (a method unheard of in Antiquity) as our janua linguarum or the Praxis at the end of Clenard's Greek Grammar uses to be; it was in all likelihood invented (after the form of our ●ueriles, or janua linguarum) by some Minister, who was a Schoolmaster, to teach the welsh School boy's English, and withal 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 concerned the Catholic Church or its 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 crafty fellow may counterfeit a passage, & pretend it to have been found in Antiquity, which may cohere so handsomely together, that no great flaw can be found in it, nor grounded exception taken against it; yet, it follows not hence that this piece of handsome forgery must therefore be relied on as authentic, unless he can produce sufficient Grounds to authorise it: viz. prove from Antiquity that such a person was held to be the Author of it; & that this pretended saying of this Author, or the book which recommended it, was acknowledged 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. Unless these be shown, still such a book, however it tells its tale handsomely, fall● short of having any Authority; since it wants all things which can Ground Authority.  
See then Reader, what weak men we have to dispute with; who think the deed done and that they may justly 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 do) though they bring not nor even go 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 we have seen lately, and as Mr Fuller tacitly grants by waving to patronise 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 its own authenticalnes. In a word, the business comes to this, that, had there been some welsh pamphlet or ballad, made in Ed. the 6th's days against the Pope, found in some Library in manuscript, printed & put forth by some Protestant Author, and supposed by the partial Antiquary, without the least proof, extracted out of ancienter copies, presently there needs no more to authorise it, so it be but against the Pope: that Ballad shall be confidently asserted to have been sung by the old British Bards, and to have signified the sense of the British Churches in those days And thus, Protestant Reader, thou seest what demonstrations thy Bps 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; unless they had proved likewise that this Abbot, in saying so, had spoken the mind of the than Catholic world? for, no man that hath any sense in his head will undertake to defend, that, in the space of fifteen or sixteen hundred years, there cannot be 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 inviolable right that can be imagined, but 'tis clearly sufficient to maintain that in so saying, they pronounced not the sense of the than Catholic world. Have there been heresies, against almost all other points of faith arisen in several ages; and shall we imagine no possibility of opposition against that point which concerns Government? Or, will it be deemed by any indifferent man a competent proof against true faith, to say, that such and such heretics denied it? No more ought it to be held sufficient, that such or such persons now and then denied that point which concerns Government; unless such a denial 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 its Authority; and lastly, evince that this Abbot, in thus saying, spoke the thoughts of the world at that time; he will conclude strongly against us: and, till he does this he does nothing; For, only the belief of a Church, relying on immediate Tradition, pretended and evinced, can be possibly held able to counterpoise the tenet of a Church which confessedly relies on immediate Tradition possessed.  
As for what the Bp. adds 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 Author of this welsh manuscript was worth a straw? Not a jot. 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 he tells us here, p. 29. and urges me to answer it. I shall; and reply, that 'tis an arrant falsification at once of all Historians: for, if he means that they only disobeyed the Pope, in not conforming themselves to his commands, I grant 'tis clear in all history they did so; and so have many, who remain Catholics, done, who yet own the Pope's Authority itself: but, if it signifies, as his circumstances and words make it, that they renounced the Pope's Authority and denied 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 just 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 customs about the observation of Easter, and administration of Baptism; and Lastly, that they should join with him in preaching to the saxons. All which are pretended to be denied in those Synods. Whereas, again, the first pretended proposal of S. Austin's is a very flat falsification of the Bp's; no such thing being there proposed: The three proposals were concerning Easter, Baptism and preaching to the English, as your friend, Dr. H. (who happened here to be more ingenuous) tells you expressly out of Bede (Appendix p. 181. l. 8. 9) Yet the Bp. citys there for this proposal and denial, Beda & omnes alij, in the margin; that is, at once belies Bede and all our Historians: and, to complete the jest (in his vindication, p. 104. l. 1. 2.) he brags that this would strike the question dead And truly so it hath: for, whereas the question before depended most upon the Bp's own words, and partly on his sincerity; nothing is more questionless now than this, that he is a most unquestionable falsifier. Now, to falsify, we are told, signifies to corroborate, that Protestant cause; and so is no shame, but a beautiful stain and an honourable scar.  
Again, he assures us here from his corroboratory proof, that all the British Clergy, did renounce all obedience to the Bp of Rome, of which all our Historiographers do bear witness. You see by his many [All's] what care he hath of sincerity. Whereas the Right of their subjection never came into play, much less did they profess a renouncing all obedience, but only in not conforming to the customs of another Church. Nor shall he find one Historiographer who affirms that they denied all subjection due, or disacknowledged the Pope's Headship (though in some things they disobeyed him) except his welsh paper, and those of his own side who presume it upon their own conjecture. And to confute his [Alderman] Pitseus tells us only, 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 customs. 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 he had to brag of them. S. Bede, l. 2. c. 2. calls them unfaithful, naughty and detestable people. Their own Country man, Gildas, says they were wolves, enemies of truth, and friends to lies, enemies of God, and not Priests, merchants of mischief and not Bp's, impugners of Christ and not his Ministers, more worthy to be drawn to Prison, than to priesthood. And the Bp's dear friend, john 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 only 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 be detestable fellows and enemies of God, that is, as good as Atheists: of which gang if this Dinoth were one, we shall neither wish the Pope such friends, nor envy them to the Protestants. And this may serve for another of the Bp's demonstrations against the Pope, to vindicate his Church from Schism, and secure his Readers from damnation, (which he 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, called 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 be expected from that Author; and principally because I understood that the said Appendix is patronised by the same learned pen that writ it; and those Exceptions shown untouched by the mock shirmish of his Adversary. Thither I refer the Reader for complete satisfaction where he 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 Papal Authority to a patriarchal; that is from 't? wholequestion. His prafest resolution not to return to it but upon conditions, and such as he is sure no Catholic can yield to. His waving the whole scope of his Adversary's Discourse: together with divers impertinent, non sencicall and unskilful 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 lie, that they had just Grounds to do it; and 3 lie, 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 Privilege given by Christ to S. Peter, and from him descended to the Pope's his' successors; that is, whereas our Controversy is about a Papal Authority, or that of the Head of God's Church, held by us and by themselves formerly to be of faith, and of divine Institution; he leaves this to talk of a patriarchal Authority, not held as from Christ, but of humane Institution. By which sleight he tacitly intimates that the Authority actually in force in England at the time of the Reformation, and then renounced, was only patriarchal, not Papal: 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 fundamental shuffling, importing no less than the avoiding the whole question? He tells us here p. 30. that when he first undertook this subject he conceived the great strength of the Roman sampson did lie in his Patriarchate. By which words if the Bp. pretends that he intended to express himself finely, I shall grant it, but if he says that he intended to speak truly, I have so good an opinion of those of his own party, that I am confident the most partial and simplest of them will be too candid and too wise to believe him. For, how can it be imagined that a Bp. and so well read a man as he is accounted to be should be ignorant that the Reformers renounced a Papal Authority and higher than patriarchal, and that a Papal Authority, that is a Supremacy over the whole Church in Ecclesiastical 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 patriarchal? yet this Bp. undertaking that subject (that is to vindicate his Church from Schism in renouncing that higher Authority) pretends he conceived that the great strength of the Roman sampson lay in his Patriarchate; though he 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 be 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 he confesses the Pope had quitted the patriarchal power, that is, pretended none for these last 600. years, and here enlargeth it to a 1000 Which shows that Dr. H. and he are the Simeon and Levy of the Protestant fraternity, and have the same fundamental faults common to both.  
But now being taken tardy, and caught running away from the question, he is well contented (he says) to give over that subject, (to wit his disgression to the Patriarchate) but yet, not but upon two conditions; wise ones you may be 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. 'tis a courtesy and to be condescended to conditionally, 'tis against his nature and inclination to hold to the question, and therefore we must bribe him to it 〈◊〉 subscribing to the bargain he proposes. The first condition he requires ere he will leave of rambling to a Patriarchate, and come home to the question, is, that we must not presume the Pope is a spiritual Monarch without proving it. What he means by spiritual Monarch I know not; 'Tis a word without sense till it be explicated: For, either he 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 he lists; and then we held not the Pope to be such a Monarch; for this, however it be called Monarch, is indeed flat Tyranny: or else, he means a Monarch is the ordinary chief Governor, and such we hold the Pope to be in the Church, and shall ever presume he is so, till his subjects who actually rebelled against his Authority disprove it. We hold on the Governors' side; your first Reformers were, before their separation, actually his subjects; actually they denied their subjection, and rose against his Government: ' This actual rising against him, this very fact, I say, proves you Rebels; his former long-enjoyed possession stands a proof of his Right unless you evidence and demonstrate him an usurper; or, though none, yet that the Government ought to be abolished. But the Bp. will not hold to the question, unless we will grant that when a subject rises against a former long possessed Governor, he shall at pleasure call the Governor to account, and oblige him to prove his title ere he will acknowledge him; and, on the other side, that the subject must be freed from all obligation to give account of his rising against his Governor, or from being bound to prove that the Authority he rebelled against was an usurpation and unjust. Good sense, but hard law!  
His second condition ere he will come to the question is, that we must not attempt to make patriarchal privileges to be Royal Prerogatives, what he means by Royal Prerogatives, I know not, there being no determinate certainty what Royalty is; the notion varying according to divers countries. But, he understands perhaps that a Patriarch shall not be independent of the King in Ecclesiastical affairs within his own Patriarchate, and that this is the King's privilege; to which condition he knows no Catholic will ever yield any more than to the former; otherwise we must grant that S. Peter could not preach at Rome, if Nero were a King; not S. james at Hiernsalem without unkinging Herod. Yet the Bp. will be even with me; for, as I will not condescend to his conditions, so, on the other side, he neither hath heretofore, nor ever will hereafter be brought to hold to the question or speak directly to the point; as hath been seen hitherto all along, and shall more particularly be seen hereafter. Nor will he long defer his revenge, but puts it in execution the very next thing he does; being assured to have demanded such conditions, as should never be granted; for,  
Whereas he had removed the question from a Papal Authority, held of divine, to a patriarchal acknowledged but of human Institution; not to desert our question totally, and to give him fair law, I put the case that the Papal Government had been only of human Institution, it ought not to have been rejected unless the abuses had been irremediable. I urged that considering, this Head was chosen, in that case, to preserve Unity in Religion, and that eternal dissensions would inevitably follow upon its rejection, and a separation of the rejecters from the rest of that commonwealth which acknowledged that Head, therefore far weightier causes must be expected, or greater abuses committed, ere, not only the person, but this very Government should be abolished. Now the matter of fact being evident, and confessed 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 acknowledged it lawful, ere they began to disclaim it as unlawful; 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 Unity in Government for all Christianity, & as such then held by them: Likewise, it being equally evident & confessed that they have now actually renounced that Authority thus held, acknowledged, and submitted to by all, whom they then deemed Christians, as the Rule and Ground of all Unity 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 imagine) 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 disannul it; and that the abuses of the said 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 established; or, (which is all one) long accepted by their common consent, as this was de facto. What does the Bp.? He tells us what he and the Protestants now held concerning that point, putting (as it were) his counter tenet to ours, says the Pope is only as a Proclocutor in a General Assembly, was their steward, that is, not their Governor, (all contrary to the matter of fact which my case is built on) that they nourish a more Catholik-Communion than we, 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 contrived? the poak-full of plums was pertinent, if compared to ' this. But still the Bishop is innocent; 'twas my fault, who would not accept of the two conditions he proposed which should have been the guerdon of his returning to the question; that is, without the performance of which he 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 acknowledged matter of fact, or such suppositions which need only application, and another name to be 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 acknowledged, 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 he 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 he would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy, and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes, or abuses of Prelates. He 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. james, 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 be 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 days. I was told by a worthy grave person and whose candour I have no reason to suspect, that in a private discourse he had with the late Archbishop of Canterbury in his own garden concerning the point of Schism, the Archbishop confessed, upon his urging the evident matter of fact, that he was in a Schism; upon which free confession of his, being pressed again by that Gentleman how he could in conscience remain in a Schism and separated from God's Church, he replied that it might lawfully be 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 Catholic Bishops complying with the Donatists for the same end. Now, I ask, whether in case the Archbishop had endeavoured to bring in Popery, Episcopacy (held to be of divine right) ought therefore to be abolished? If be answer; No, (as I suppose his interest will prevail above his Grounds to make him) than I ask again why an inferior actual power, to wit, Episcopacy, should not be 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 be abolished for its own sake, as accompanied with the said 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 sense, as to give a manabox on the ear, and then tell him you intent 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 he had the greatest; yet, they hope to be taken for moderate men, as long as they speak courteous nonsense 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, he tells us that Monarchy and Episcopacy are of divine Institution, so is not, (saith he) a Papal sovereignty of jurisdiction. That Monarchy should be 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 Monarchical Government of the King of Spain. But the learned Bp. hath some text or other in Scripture which he interprets only according to Grammar and Dictionary-learning without ever looking into Politics, 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 perpetual 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 be best for the Governed: which comes to this that no particular form of Government is of divine Institution, and constituted to endure ever, seeing 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 jurisdiction is not of divine Institution, as Episcopacy is; you see 'tis his old trick; only his own bare saying, and which is worse, saying over again the very point in dispute between us. Whereas, the point which we urge here is a plain matter of fact, that those who first renounced the Papal Authority, held immediately before they renounced it as firmly that it was divine Institution, as the Protestants do of Episcopacy now; and therefore aught to have renounced it, upon the pretended pressure of inconveniencies, no more than Episcopacy ought to be abolished upon the like inconveniences. Nay more, the first Reformers ere they grew new-fangled and changed their mind, held it much more firmly; for they held it a point of faith, and abhorred all them who renounced it as Schismatics and Heretics 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, 'tis 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 powerful to unite them, than the professed and obstinate rejecting Christ's ordinances, is to disunite them. As for his Bravado how rarely he could justify his Parliamentary Prelacy, what weak performances it would afford were it put to trial, may be judged from his numerous and enormous contradictions in this present treatise, bragged on by the Protestants to be his Master piece.   

Sect. 6.  
How my L● of Derry states the whole question false, by pretending, against the plain matter of fact, that they separated only from the Court, and not from the Church of Rome. His Grounds of separation shown insufficient in many regards; nay confessed 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 clustered 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 do 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 fruitful of such creatures, than afric itself, proposes to our observation. Which, if it be not as foul and uncouth an one as error could hatch, and obstinate Schism maintain, you shall pay but pence a piece to see it, and say I have abused you too.  
The charge against the Protestants was this, manifested by undeniable matter of fact; that they had rejected the acknowledgement of S. Peter's, and his successors, (the Pope's) Headhip over God's Church; and that they had receded from this Rule of faith, that nothing is to be 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 acknowledgement of the former, both was at the time of the Reformation, and now is the Principle of Unity 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, 'tis as visible as the sun at nonday, that France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc. consent and centre in a joint acknowledgement of the Pope's Headship, and are therefore held by Protestants, Puritans, and all contrary sects for Papist Countries. It is evident likewise that the acknowledgement of the latter was, and is to the said Churches the Principle of Unity in faith, for they ever held the living voice of the Church, that is, the immediate Tradition or delivery of Pastors and forefathers an infallible Rule of faith; wherefore, ' it is unavoidably consequent that the Protestants dissenting from, and disagreeing in both the said 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 said Principles. Again, since nothing can be more essential to a Church than that which is the Rule, and Root of Unity 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 Essentials and fundamentals 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 only and to defend themselves as breaking only from that Court, is to say, that none hold those two Principles but only the Court of Rome; which (to speak moderately (is perfect Impudence, the most proper and characteristical expression of this Bp's manner of writing; but the blame is mine, for had I performed those two powerful conditions, the Bishop, had not thus shuffled 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 he should judge of the sufficiency or insufficiency of their Grounds for separation; as likewise to reflect that, though he pretend here they had sufficient Grounds, yet he thinks it not safe to speak out to the point (as I urged him heretofore) nor tell us whether those Grounds of his exceptions be demonstrative, that is apt to infer with absolute necessity, therefore the Authority was an usurpation, and not come from Christ; or, though come from Christ, yet, for those reasons, to be rejected: nor dares he confess that they are only probable, yet sufficient: For, if probable reasons were sufficient to abolish an Authority as an usurpation, held, till those reasons appeared, to have been of Christ's Institution; what Government in the world could stand? Nor last, that there is a middle sort of proof between demonstration and Probability; that is, above a may be, yet below a must be, which can convince sufficiently the understanding and oblige it to an assent contrary to its former faith. These points are of too hard digestion for verb ●ll souls, and come so near the first Principles, that they would quickly end this and all Controversies, should they come to be perfectly scanned. Wherefore, as before he totally omitted to answer those words of mine which pressed him to declare himself in that point; so, here, constant to his Principles, he absolutely declines to inform us what kind of proofs they must be; only he calls them Grounds, & says they are just and sufficient.  
His pretended Grounds I reduce to three general Heads: some of them entrench upon Eternity & conscience: some urge only temporal inconveniences; Lastly, some are of a middle nature, and pretend to more knowledge of Right.  
Those of the first sort are all mere falsehoods and calumnies, and equally competent for any Heretic in the world to object against the Church in a like occasion; that is, are no ways proper or serviceable to his cause. For, may not any Heretic voluntarily object that the Church imposed new Articles of faith upon him, when he had a mind to believe or hold nothing of faith, but what agreed with his own fancy? Might not he complain of new creeds imposed, when the Church, upon occasion of new emergent heresies, added to her public Professions some points of faith (held so formerly) which might distinguish her old friends from up start foes? Might not he complain of Peril of Idolatry, as your Brother Puritan did for surplices, and your reformed Communion-table, when he had a mind to deny that Christ was more than a man as did the Arians, or to renounce any decent or rational practice in God's Church; might not he pretend that all Heretics and Schismatics in the world were good Christians, and that the Church was tyrannical in holding them for excommunicate? Might not he shuffle together faith with opinions, and allege falsely, as you do here, you were forced to approve the Pope's rebellion against general Councils, and taking Oaths to maintain usurpation of the Pope; whenas, you know and confess yourself, one may be of our Church, and yet neither hold the Pope above the Council nor accept of such Oaths (Just vindic. p. 200.) Again, all these Exceptions you produce are the very points you pretend to dispute against us; wherefore it depends upon the goodness of your reasons, whether those Articles pretended to be new were indeed such, and endangering Idolatry, or no; in judging which concerning points Fancy must be allowed to pass no verdict only rigour of reason, that is, demonstration, can be presumed sufficient to render points, held formely by themselves, and their immediate forefathers as of faith, sacred and Christ's doctrine, to be 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 imagined 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 Church's Authority hath been pretended by our late Controvertists, and as yet unreplyed upon by your party; nay that your own best writers confess you have nothing but probability whereon to Ground your faith. All which shows the vanity of your pretended fear of Idolatry, and new points of faith, and concludes your breach temerarious and irrational. And as for your fear of separating from the Communion of three parts of that which you call Christendom, it shall be shown hereafter (Sect. 10) from your own side, that you had ten times more Communion even with that in material 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 temporal inconveniences, and injuries to the civil state, by reason of the Pope's pretended encroachments; against all which he hath told us before (p. 21.) that divers Catholic countries have laws in force; that is, that men may remain catholics without holding, nay resisting those pretended encroachments; and tells us here p. 36. that all▪ other Catholic countries maintain their privileges inviolated. Yet these pretended inconveniences he huddles together in big terms, and puts them for a ground of their separation from our Church, in which Church yet he confesses they might have continued still in union, and have stood out against them▪ Now whether many of these were Abuses or just Rights he knows is disputable between canon and civil Lawyers; of which kind of Controversy I neither think myself nor the Bp. a competent judge, since this kind of learning is not our proper profession. Yet he will needs have me engage into such questions, nothing concerning our present quarrel, 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 itself, and separating from the former Church. That they were not, I show.  
First, those inconveniences he reckons up, as extortions, usurpations of more than belonged to them, causing animosities between the crown and the mitre, etc. though they had been true, are evidently abuses of the Officer and argue no fault in the Office itself of Head of the Church, nor that the Right use of it ought therefore to be taken away.  
Secondly, some of those pretended Abuses are his own deductions only; as that it is against the right ends of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction; which he endeavours not to show evidently out of the science of Politics, which is proper to those matters, nor any thing else of this nature; but out of two or perhaps three matters of fact which only inferred that it happened so sometimes; and then by the same reason Episcopacy and all the Offices in the world must be abolished and abrogated.  
Thirdly, that some of those pretended Abuses are indeed such, and not rather just Rights. he no way proves; for he only puts down that such and such things were done, but whether rightfully or no I presume he will not think himself such a rare juris utriusque Doctor, as to make a fit umpire to decide law quarrels of this highe'st nature▪ And, on the other side, none is ignorant that either party had learned lawyers for them to avouch their pretences. I omit that the Kings were worsted so metimes and renounced their pretence, as in that of investitures.  
Fourthly, the temporal laws he citys, conclude not evidently a Right; for, it is as easy for a Canon-lawier to object that the temporal laws wrong the Ecclesiastical, as it is for civil lawyers to say that the Ecclesiastical wrong theirs; but with this disadvantage to the latter that reason gives more particular respect and charines ought to be used in disannulling or retrenching Ecclesiastical laws, than temporal, by how much they are nearer allied to the Church, and by consequence to the order of mankind to Beatitude.  
Fifthly, he abuses those pretended Abuses most unconscionably; saying, that the Pope usurped most unjustly all Right, civil, Ecclesiastical, sacred, profane, of all orders of men, Kings, Nobles, Bishops, etc. Which is such a loud-mouthed calumny; such a far-stretching fiction, that it is as big as all Christendom. For, by this, no man in the Church was master or owner of his own Kingdom, Estate, house, nay not of the very bread he 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 sense, 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 Governors the sword in their hand? did it not lie in their power to choose whether they would admit or no things destructive to their Rights? yes: for the Bp. tells us p. 36. that All other Catholic countries, (which he knows held the Pope's supremacy, as well as England) do maintain their own Privileges inviolated: And, as for England, he tells us, in a slovenly phrase, that our Ancestors were not so stupid as to sit still, and blow their noses; meaning that they did the same which other Catholic countries did; so that, according to himself, there was a remedy still, and a means to keep their privileges inviolated.  
Seventhly, put case, these temporal 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 Ecclesiastical Communion is to be broken for all the temporal concernments imaginable: For, first, that the well being and peace of a Church cannot consist without Unity, is so evident, that the very terms would convince him of a contradiction who should deny it; since distraction and dissension, (the parents of dissolution and ruin) must needs be where there is no Unity. Secondly, not only the well being of a Church, but the very Being of it consists in its Unity; for what scholar knows not that things of this nature have no other Unity, (nor consequently Entity or Being) but that of order, that is of Superiority and subordination: Whence follows, that, if this Order be broken, which is done by disacknowledging the former Ecclesiastical chief Magistrate, the Unity of the Church is dissolved, 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 dissolved that which was the chief bond of Unity in the former Church, was in its own nature destructive, of a Church. A mischief which outweighs the necessity of remedying the highest temporal 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 he had not constituted a Church; that is, he had not done what he 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 sinful and criminal; and so, no temporal inconveniences can be a competent plea for such a fact; since no temporal inconvenience can be a sufficient reason for a man to sin. Fourthly, if the Communion of a Church may be broken for temporal miscarriages it follows that all the general Councils were to no purpose; since whensoever the observation of these general Councils hapens to be inconvenient to the temporal state, that is, suit not with the humours of the Governed, but are likely to breed combustion, the remedying the temporal ills (according to the Bp.) ought to oversway. The consequence is evident; for general Councils cannot be 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 temporal 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 supernatural knowledge of God, is so essentially necessary for the salvation of mankind, that no worldly consideration ought to balance it. Now then since faith, if not one is none; nor can it be preserved one but by some certain Rule to keep it one, it follows that no temporal mischief can deserve a remedy accompanied with the renouncing this certain Rule of faith: Wherefore, temporal inconveniences cannot with any face be alleged 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 be of faith. Yet this former Rule of faith, the first Reformers renounced, when they renounced the Pope's Headship recommended by that Rule.  
Sixthly, the matter of fact not only charges you to have rejected the Rules of Unity 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 Grammatical 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 be either ignorant or doubtful of it; what easier than Children to believe as they were taught, and practice as they were shownd. What more impossible than for fathers to conspire to either error 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 father's doctrine, and was most important to their and their Child's endless bliss or misery? And, what more evident than that they who proceed upon this principle, (as Catholics do) will always 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 believe their immediate forefathers, yet if we go 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 wilderness of words in the Scriptures: ask them for a certain method to know the true sense of it; they'll tell you, 'tis 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 sense of it. Ask them for a certain interpreter; perhaps sometimes they will answer you faintly that the general Councils and fathers are one; that is, you must run over Libraries ere you can rationally embrace any faith at all; and, if you be so sincere to your nature, reason, as to look for certainty which books are legitimate fathers, which not; which Councils general, authentic, and to be believed, which not? you are engaged again to study all the School-disputes, & Controversies which concern those questions. And, if you repine at the endless 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 only; which signifies that no man can rationally be a Christian, or have any obligation to believe any thing; since it is both most irrational and impossible there should be any obligation to assent upon a probability. And thus, Reader, thou see est what pass they bring faith and its Unity to; to wit, to a perfect nullity and total ruin.  
Next, as for Government, let us see whether they have left any Unity of that in God's Church! That which was held for God's Church by them, while they continued with us were those Churches only in Communion with the see of Rome; the Unity 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 its 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, etc. For they give no Ground, nor have any certain Rule of faith to discern which are of it, which not. But we will pitch upon their acknowledged 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 Presbytery only: strange Unity 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 no 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 Ecclesiastical Governor. 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 Unity 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 Unity of Government, either than let him show that God's Church, as cast in this mould, has an Unity within the limits and notion of Government, tha● is, any commonty to subscribe to some one sort of Government either acknowledged to have been instituted by Christ, or agreed on by common consent of those in this new-fashioned Church; or else, let him confess that this Church thus patched up, has no Unity in Government at all. We will do the Bishop a greater favour, and give him leave to set aside the french Church and the rest, and only reflect upon the form of Government they substituted to that which they rejected; to wit, that the King, or temporal power, should be supreme in Ecclesiastical Affairs. Be it so then, and that each particular pretended Church in the world were thus governed, we see that they of England under their King, would make one Church; they of Holland, under their Hogen Moghen Magistrates another; France under its King a third, and so all the rest of the countries in the world. Many Churches we see here indeed in those Grounds, and many distinct independent Governors; but where is there any Unity of Government for the whole? where is there any supreme Governor, or Governors 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 be any Unity of Government or a Church, that is, a thing connected, united, or made one by Order, or by Unity of Government? The Church is God's Family; can that be called a Family, where mutually independent persons live in several 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 Unity is in itself: can that be called 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 superior Magistrate or Magistrates? The Church is a Christian Commonwealth; can there be a Commonwealth which can bèe called one, if every City and town have a particular supreme Governor of its own, without owing deference to any superior or superiors? Does not common sense inform us that in this cause each City is a particular, that is, one complete self bounded Commonwealth? that is, that those many Cities are more ones, that is, many Commonwealths? Wherefore either show us some one standing, ordinary form of Magistracy or Government to which all Christendom ought to submit, and some Magistrate, or Magistrates, Governor, or Governors to whom they owe a constant obedience, (which is impossible in your Grounds) or else acknowledge plainly that you have left no Unity of Government in God's Church at all, but have unravelled all the frame and disannulled all the Being of a Church, which consisted essentially in Order; and made that parts of it have no more connexion or Unity than a rope of sand. Yet as long as these pitiful shufflers can but tell the abused Reader in general terms that they acknowledge the discipline left by Christ and his Apostles, they make account their adherents will renounce both their eyes and common sense, and be content to follow hood-wintked after the empty tinkling sound of these hollow and nothing signifying phrases.  
Perhaps, the Bp. will reply, that a general Council is acknowledged by them as of obligatory Authority; and that, therefore, there is yet a means left for Unity of Government in the whole Church. Upon which answer the good Protestant Reader thinks them humble and reasonable men. But this is indeed the greatest mockery that can be invented. For, first, they give us no certain Rule to know which is a general Council, which not, that is who are to be called to that Council, who not; for once taking away a certain Rule of faith, there is no certainty who are Heretics, that is, men not to be called to a Council as to sit in it and vote; who good catholics, that is, to be called thither to sit and vote there. Next, general Councils being only called upon extremities, if the Church's Unity in Government consist only in them, it follows that the Church hath actually no Unity of Government but just at that pinch when a general Council is to be called; that is, it is never a Church, but at that happy time only, when it is most unhappy. But, the greatest piece of foolery is, that, they having renounced an actual standing Authority, pretend (to show their goodness,) a readiness to submit to the Authority of a general Council, which themselves will acknowledge with the next breath impossible to be had; that is, they profess themselves very humbly and heartily ready, though they have renounced one Government, yet to submit to another, which can never be, and so is never likely to trouble or control them. Is not this a piece of hollow hearted humility. Yet that such Councils as they will deign to call general are held by them impossible, Dr. H. tells us Reply p. 30. in those words, general Councils are now morally impossible to be had, the Christian world being under so many Empires, and divided into so many Communions, that it is not visible to the eye of man, how they should be regularly assembled; Here, Reader, thou seest all n●y discourse asserted; to wit, that God's Church, as they have formed it, is so divided into disparate parts, that, as there is no Unity of Government in it now, (for if there were, there would be also a means to assemble a general Council) so it is impossible there should be any for the future according to their Grounds, till some one temporal Governor come to Lord it ov●r the whole, or greatest part of the Christian world, which in all likelihood will be never. Consider again their candour, they have renounced the former notion of God's Church, and his Authority whose proper office it was to call a general Council of that whole Church, as he did often, and then profess a willingness to submit to such a Council, or a Representative of their new notioned Church; but, with the next breath, lament (alas) that such a general Council, or Representative cannot possibly be 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 irrational and unbeseeming God's Providence, that his Church should be destitute of a means to remedy her extremities, that is; of means to gather a general Council, and that there was a means to do 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 total charge against you; that you have broke the Unity of the former Church, (and not of the Court only, as you trifle it) which you were in, by renouncing those Principles in which consisted her Unity 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 Unity, to your new fashioned Church in either respect, but, that you have turned Evidence of Authority (the only certain Rule and Root of faith) into a drowsy probability; and, by consequence, faith thus grounded, into Opinion; as, likewise, that you have turned the former Government of the Church into a perfect Anarchy; there being no colligation or Unity of the whole together, tie any by of Government; and that (had not God's mercy been above your malice) you had made the Church, our Jerusalem, which is built as a City at Unity with itself, (that is which hath an Unity 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 sinful guilt of Schism and heresy, that your fact and tenet is intrinsically destructive to the very being of God's Church, and that it tears and rends it piecemeal all asunder. A mischief equally pernicious to man-kind's attaining Beatitude, as the renouncing the supreme Government in a Kingdom or commonwealth would be in order to their safe enjoyment of their temporal livelihoods; and, therefore, no ways to be balanced or excused by alleging temporal inconveniences; since it as far overpoises its excuse as Eternity of bliss does a piece of earth; that is, infinitely.  
His third sort of Grounds, is the weakness of the Pope's pretences, and the exemption of the Britannic Churches from foreign jurisdiction by the Council of Ephesus. For the fitst, the Bp. never so much as directly mentions that in which we place the strength of the Pope's pretence, of his supreme Authority, much less impugns it, save only a little on the by (as it were) in his sleight way: 'tis this, that it was held and delivered 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. Upon this tenure as strongly supported as nature could bear, held demonstrably evident, and so shown by us; not yet answered or pretended to be answered by the Protestant party, we 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 he would have named it) or else he is impugning some Canon Lawyer, 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 Britannic Churches have no influence upon our Churches descended from saxons; nor shall he ever show a syllable in the Council of Ephesus exempting them from the Pope's jurisdiction, as Head of the Church; however Cyprus and some others are there exempted from a neighbouring superior falsely pretending a jurisdiction over them; But of this more shall be said hereafter in this present Section.  
The Unity of the Church being of such importance, and the fact breaking it, by consequence so heinous, the alleging the greatest abuses imaginable are absolutely concluded insufficient excuses for such a fact; much more, unless it be shown, there were no other possible means to remedy them. Hereupon I alleged that it was of little concernment to examine whether his complaints were true or false, since he does not show there was no other remedy, but division. First, the Bishop replies sharply. What? is it of little concernment to examine whether the Grounds be sufficient or no? well leapt my Lord; I speak of the inconsiderablenes of their truth, or falsehood; your L● talks of inconsiderablenes of their sufficiency, & pretends against both plain words and conscience that I wave that. There may be objections against the Abuses perhaps of all Governors 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 itself, and that there is another cure: This it that in which I showed your manner of arguing defective in the main, because you never proved nor ever shall, that there was no other remedy except division; for, unless you put in this (and more too) your argument stands in this posture, True complaints against Governors, 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 be perfectly your own, cloaked a little in other, (but equivalent) terms. Next, he 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 actual Authority, either to show that that Authority was none, or else that though it was a lawful one, yet there was no other remedy for its Abuses, but a total Abolishment of it. Otherwise, the very majesty which Government carries in its notion, the Unity, peace, and a thousand blessings and conveniences which spring from that Unity, found in the common acknowledment of that Authority, oversway the private credit, or any other less public concerns, which the disobedient party can pretend to; and renders their fact of rising, irrational and destructive to the common, engaging them needlessly in a thousand distractions, and by consequence, hazards of ruin which attend such divisions. Thirdly, he 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 Universities, who will inform him that negatives may witht equal evidence be concluded in Celarent & Ferio as affirmatives may in Barbara, and Darij. Lastly, the proof which he 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 he tells us in the next page in contradiction to himself, here) found other remedies to preserve their privileges inviolated, and his pretended proofs are such pitiful 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 personal account, and that the Pope would not ease them upon many Addresses made? what then? Had not the King the sword in his own hands? did it not lie in his power to right himself as he ●isted, and to admit those pretended eneroachments only so far as he thought just and fitting? Nay do not yourself lay open and repeat in many places that not only Kings of England but also those of all other countries both could and did do it often, and by doing so preserve their privileges inviolated? How does this prove then that there was sufficient Grounds of dividing from the former Church, since yourself 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 privileges? Not a word than hath the Bp. brought to prove they had sufficient Grounds of division, that is, that there was no other remedy: but, in stead thereof, expressly told us the contrary, and manifoldly contradicted himself.  
I added. And much more, if the Authority be of Christ's Institution no just cause can possibly ●ee given for its abolishment. The merry Bp. laughs at this, (as he calls it) Kind of arguing; which neither looks like an Argument, nor was pretended by me 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 be Catholics, they immediately before held it as Catholics 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 he and his Ancestors immemorially embraced but upon evident Grounds; again, since it is evident likewise and confessed that temporal motives ought not to make us break Christ's commands, which is done by rejecting a Government which he instituted: Two things are consequent hence to their disadvantage; one, that their motives ought to be 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 laid in their minds when they first began to meditate a breach: The other, that the pretended causes (especially temporal inconveniences) for the abolishing this Authority can no ways justify the first breakers who held it formerly a point of faith, since no just causes can be given to renounce an Authority held to be instituted by Christ; As than it had been rational to Reply to King H. the 8th remaining yet a Catholic, and beginning to have thoughts to abolish this Authority, upon such and such temporal inconveniences that his majesty and his Ancestors had held it of divine Institution and that therefore there could be no just cause to abolish it, so it is equally seasonable to Reply to my Lord of Derry, who undertakes here to vindicate him by alleging 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 be of Christ's Institution; and therefore it is a folly for him to think to justify them by huddling together causes and motives, and crying them up for sufficient till he can show they had Evidence of the Truth of the opposite point, greater than the pretended Evidence of Authority, universal Tradition, which they actually had for their former tenet  
If a cause be sufficient to produce an effect, and equally applied 'tis manifest the same effect will follow. Hence, as an argument of the insufficiency of their motives of Division, I alleged that all other Catholic countries had the same exceptions, yet neither broke formerly, nor follow your Example. He answers, first; Few or none have sustained so great oppression; which signifies, I know not well whether any have or no: or, for any thing I know, some have; Nor does he prove the contrary otherwise than by a pleasant saying of a certain Pope. Any thing will serve him. Next he tells us, all other countries have not right to the Cyprian privileges, as Britain hath. And how proves he 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 Britain at least? No. How come we then to be particularly privileged 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 Predecessors. And how proves he the application, that England was never anciently under the Pope as Head of the Church? from Sir Henry Spelman's old-new manuscript, and two or three rags of History, or misunderstood Testimonies. Are they demonstrative or rigorous Evidences? Here my Ld is wisely silent. Will less serve than such proofs to justify such a separation? He 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 delivery from hand to hand, which recommended and ascertained the contrary? Alas! he never thinks of nor considers that at all; but very wisely puts his light grains in one end of the scales, negl acting to put our pounds in the other; and then brags that his thin grains are overweight.  
The third particularising motive is his own unproued saying, and is concluded with a boast that he is not the only schismatic 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 he hath fellows in his schism? He knows we grant them not to be truly-called Christians, but in the name only and equivocally, as a painted man is styld ' a man; If he will show that any Congregation of truly-called 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 only 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 be called faithful or Christians; otherwise, they heard not the immediately foregoing Church for those points which they innovated, and so are to us no properly called Christians, but, according to our saviours counsel 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 only a probable and fallible Ground, that is opinion only for their faith; and than you shall contradict your own best and more candid writers who confess it in terms; and do such a miracle as your Ancestors never attained to; nor any of wit and ingenuity attempted, seeing it impossible to be done rationally.  
I alleged, 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 proffered to continue in the peace of the Church, than to attempt so destructive an innovation. The Bp. replies, first, that we should not mistake them, a●d that they still desire to live in the Communion of the Catholic Church, etc. No, my Ld, I do not mistake you, but know very well you would be 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 we would account you true Catholics; and what disgrace you get by being accounted Heretics and Schismatics by us. But yet your desire of staying in the Church is conditional, that you may be permitted to remain in her Communion, and yet have liberty still to do and hold what you list. Do you not think every Rebel, that renounces both the former Government and laws, loves not still to be held a good Commonwealths man, and not to be outlawed or punished, but permitted to enjoy the privilege of the Commonwealth, whose Unity he hath broken, so he may have his own intentions? Had jack Straw, or Wat Tiler, after they had rebelled, a mind to be thought Rebels, or to be hanged; or, upon the Governors declaring them Outlaws and punishable, was it a competent plea for them to say they desired 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 Unity of the former Church is much more evident than theirs, being visible to the eyes of the whole world; and infinitely more heinous, since it concerns the order to Eternity. After this fact so visible, so enormous; 'tis no charity nor courtesy in you, but a request of an unreasonable favour from us, to admit you into Communion; and would be most absurd in Government, most contradictory in terms; signifying thus much that they should be still held by us for good subjects, who profess and defend still their Rebellion against the former Church Government; and for the right faithful, who have no Rule of faith at all, nay pretend themselves to no more than an opinion-grounding or probability.  
Secondly, he tells us, our Ancestors 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 denied of them, and charge upon the Bp. what says he to this? He denies it too, after he had shuffled about a while; (for he must have the liberty to take his swing) that is, he says the same I do, and grants, what he pretends to confute. For, after he had reckoned up what things our Ancestors had done against the Pope, he adds, as the top of the Climax, that they threatened 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 threatened they did it not. But, 'tis evident that you have done what they only threatened to do, and in excuse of your doing it, you add immediately, that you have more Experience than your Ancestors had. Thus the Bp. something candidly at present: Yet, we have seen him heretofore, in contradiction to himself here, both affirm and maintain that K. H. the 8th when he renounced the Pope made no new law, but only declared the ancient law of England; which signifies that the wall of separation was not only threatened but made formerly; for the former laws were actually in force before K. H's time, nay in the very beginning of his Reign, as himself confesses p. 2s. l. 7. 8. And we 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 acknowledged notions of the whole world. An excellently bad cause needs an excellently good memory.  
Now then since you have at unawares acknowledged 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. 'Tis this, that you have more experience than your Ancestors; but whence this greater experience springs, or out of what Experiments which they had not, you gathered this experience, you have not one word. Are you wiser than they were in the Art of Governing as to this point? Sure yourself do not believe it, nor can say it with modesty; since by professing you made no new law in this matter, (that is retained the old, which you received from them) you confess you know not how to make better. Were they cowards and durst not make those provisions 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 Kingdom. 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 justify your separation! If it do, produce it; if not, why do you allege this more experience? And, indeed, how come you to pretend to it! For, since experience of necessity supposes an Experiment whence 'tis derived, either some new thing happened by which this great necessity of separation which your Ancestors were ignorant of came to be discovered to you, or else you had no more experience than they. Therefore, good my Ld, tell us what this new Experiment was: But, it seems you thought it either not handsome to be owned, or not worth the owning that assign us none at all, telling us only in general terms you have more experience than your Ancestors had, etc. that is, in stead of producing some cause of separating which might vindicate your Church from Schism, to assign an effect without a cause; and defend it with the same plea as a man would do his Rebellion, who rising against his actual Governors, and upon that score standing accused of Treason, should go about to maintain it was therefore lawful for him to Rebel, because he was wiser than the former subjects; and then tell that troublesome Adversary who should press him to prove this greater Wisdom, that he has more experience, and that he is so.  
However, since you are resolved to make a secret of this rare Experiment, and that, by consequence, we are not to expect from you any Grounds of your greater experience, let us see at lest what it is you pretend to have more enperience of. 'Tis this, that their Ancestors remedies were not sovereign or sufficient enough, etc. Now these remedies of theirs being their rational laws, (as he 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. He tells us here that the remedies, that is, laws of our Ancestors 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 alleged here that the former laws were insufficient, and acknowledged the page before that all other Catholic countries do maintain their privileges inviolate, by means of their laws (as I conceive and he intimates) which laws he says, p. 21. are equivalent to those of England which he pretends here not to be 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 equal force, yet the one was sufficient, the others not, that is, of less force: And, thirdly, that all Catholic countries did maintain their privileges inviolate by means which did not maintain them, or by laws which were not sufficient to do it. Lastly, he tells us, p. 20. that the former laws denied 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 national laws were not sufficient remedies; Whence 'tis manifestly consequent, according to him, that those laws which denied 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 stored with; which are his demonstrations to vindicate his Church from Schism; only he christens the monstrous things with a finer name, and calls them their greater experience. Whereas, indeed, as for more experience he brags of, God know (poor men) 'tis only that which Eve got by eating the Apple, the expeperience of evil added to that which they had formerly of good. Their Ancestors experienced an happy Unity, Unanimity, Uniformity and constancy in the same faith while they remained united to the former Church; and they since their breach have experienced nothing but the contrary; to wit, distractions, dissensions, Vnconformity, with a perpetually-fleeting changeableness of their tenet; and, at last, an utter dissolution and disapparition of their Mock Church, built only in the Air of fantastic probabilities.  
In the last place I alleged, that the pretences upon which the Schism was originally made were far different from those he 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 Authority. Which shows that at most, the scales were but equally balanced 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 allege, which you grant, in the next page, were most certainly then observed or the greatest part of them. For since they were observed then, that is, since the same causes were applied then, apt to work upon men's minds, those same causes had been also formerly efficacious, that is, had formerly produced the effect of separating as well as now, had there not been now some particular disposition in the patient; and what particular disposition can be shown at the instant of breaking, save the King's lust, which was most manifest and evident, I confess I cannot imagine, nor (as I am persuaded (the Bp. himself; at least he tells us none, but only in general terms says they had more experience than their Ancestors.   

Sect. 7.  
The first part of the Protestant's Moderation, expressed by my Ld of Derry in six pieces of nonsense and contradiction; with an utter ruin of all Order and Government. His pretended undeniable Principles very easily and rationally denied. His Church's inward charity, and the special external work thereof (as he calls it) her Good-friday-Prayer, found to be self contradictory Pretences. His Moderation in calling those tenets Weeds, which he cannot digest; and indifferent Opinions, which he will not be obliged to hold. That according to Protestant Grounds 'tis impossible to know any Catholic 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; He answers so were the saddest subjects to Democritus, I Reply, the subject is indeed very sad for never was a sadder piece of Logic produced by a nonplussed Sophister, yet withal so mirthful, 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 accidental errors. Now, the matter of fact hath evidenced undeniably that they separated from those points which were the Principles of unity both in faith & Government to the former Church with which they communicated, and consequently from all the persons which held those Principles; and, had their separation been expressed in these plain terms and true language, nothing had sounded more intolerable and immoderate: wherefore my Ld 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 only accidentalnes, and then all is well, and he is presently (if we will believe his word against our own eyes) a moderate man; and so are the Protestans too who participate his Moderation. But, if we demand what could be Essential to the former Church if these too Principles (renounced by them) which grounded all that was good in her, were accidental only? or how he can justly hold her a true Church whose fundamental of fundamentals, the Root & Rule of all her faith, was, as he says here, an error; his candid answer would show us what common sense already informs us that nothing could be either Essential or fundamental to that Church. And so, this pretended Moderation would vanish on one side into plain nonsense, in thinking any thing could be more Essential to a Church then Unity of faith, and Government; on the other side into mere folly and indeed contradiction 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 errs 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 devotion, (Art. 31. is styled a blasphemous fiction & pernicious imposture; and (Art. 33.) that those who are cut of from the Church publicly (I conceive they mean Catholics or at least include them, whom they used to excommunicate publicly 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, etc. And, to make up the measure of his fore father's sins the Bp. calls here those two Principles of Unity 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 falsehoods. 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 jest, 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 believe those former expressions to be true, and that we 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 err in credendis, contradict Scripture blasphemously & perniciously in her doctrine, nay though her all grounding Principles be flat 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 heretical (though this be the very definition of Heresy) but as a true Church still, nor is to be censured to be otherwise. Good charitable nonsense!  
He tells me, first, that he speaks 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 forgetful he is) quotes S. Cyprian for removing no man from our Communion, etc. And how they should refuse to communicate with any, unless they first judge him & censure him to deserve to be avoided, that is, naught, I must confess I know not.  
Next, he tells us one may in some cases very lawfully communicate with material Idolaters, Heretics, etc. In pious offices, though not in their Idolatry, Heresy, etc. 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 public solemn act, performable by Catholics, as they are subjects of such a common wealth, from which the other is out lawed, or performable by those others, as belonging to a distinct sect? Again this position of Moderation destroys all order & Government both of Church & state; for, by this, out lawed persons may be traffick'r & treated with so we join not with them in their rebellion; and all the whole world (heathens too) may be of one Communion; especially all Heretics, 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 external 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 only 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 sense, reason, order, discipline, Government, common wealth, Church.  
Thirdly he tells us that the Orthodox Christians did sometimes communicate with the heretical Arians. By which you see he is a kind disposition to admit even those to his Communion who deny Christ's divinity. The Arians were known to cloak themselves so craftily in words, that they could not for a long time be certainly discovered; nor is it any wonder that for a while Heretics be tolerated, until they be both heard and a time of repentance be prescribed them.  
Fourthly, he tells us he hath shown how the Primitive Catholics communicated with the Schismatical Novatians in the same public divine offices. But he is so reserved as not to direct us where he hath shown this; nor could an ordinary inquiry find it out; and in his p. 282. which place seems most proper for that discourse, he only names the word [Novatians] without proving any thing concerning them. Now the Novatians were simply Schismatics, and transported only by a too rigorous zeal to a disobedience to the Church in a formerly received practice; with such as these it is lawful to communicate, till, upon their contumacy, the Church shall excommunicate them. Again, as long as Schismatics & those who are erroneous in faith, are only in via (as we may say) and not in termino, and hardened into an obstinacy, there is a prudential latitude allowed by the Church, delaying her censures as long as she 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 trial, before they are to be avoided upon necessity. But, can my Ld of Derry show a parallel to our case, that any renounced 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? unless he can show this, he beats the Air, for this only 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 he possibly see with evidence that the immediate Tradition of all those Churches with whom he communicated did avouch his tenet, for he was the man that brought in the novelty; 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 confessed, avouched, & still maintained by your own obstinate selves.  
Fifthly, he told us that the Catholics called the Donatists their brethren. I answer, so are Catholics bound to call the Protestants now; nay Turks, Heathens, and in general all men who are yet in a capacity to attain beatitude, that is, all but the damned in hell, who are eternally hardened in enmity against God. S. Peter (Art. 3. v. 17.) called the jews who crucyfyed 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 Catholics their Brethren. And what is this Principle of mine? 'Tis 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 cavils at, and then take, if thou canst, the just dimensions of the unmeasurable weakness of error and its Abettors. Do not truth and certainty involve essentially in their notions an oppositenes and contrariety to falsehood & error? Does not true signify not-false? How is it possible than a man endued 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 selfsame with this, that a thing cannot both be & not be at once, is denied by the Bp. nay accounted disgraceful to hold it. Whereas, indeed, it is not mine nor the Donatists only, but the common Principle of nature, which the silliest old wife and least boy come to the use of reason cannot but know. Error pressed home cannot burst out at length into less absurdities than denying the first Principles.  
The Bishop of Derry having shown us how well skilled 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 only; 'tis true: if points of faith, 'tis 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 settled; that is, if she proceed as a Church. If he wonder at this, I shall increase his admiration by letting him know my mind, 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 only proceeded & stuck close to that Rule) should ever come to vary from the former Protestant Belief; for, as long as the now fathers taught their Children what was held now, and the Children (without looking farther) believed their fathers and taught their Children as they believed, and so successively, it follows in terms that the posterity remote a thousand generations would still believe 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, strengthened by so many superadded assistances.  
His second Principle is, that all errors are not Essential or fundamental. I answer that if by Errors he means only opinions, as he seems to say in the next paragraph, than none at all are Essential; but what is this to my proposition which spoke of Religion not of opinions; unless 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, than every such error is fundamental and (to answer this third Principle with the same labour) destroys the being of a Church. For, since a Church must necessarily have a Rule of faith, otherwise she were no Church, and that 'tis 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 only 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 essential errors. Why so, my Ld? if those errors be not essential, 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 utterly 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 unless you can show us that you still maintain the former Principles of Unity both in faith and Government. These are the points which you violently broke and rejected; show either that these were not fundamentally concerning the Unity and consequently 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 Schismatic & Heretic. But 'tis sufficient for your Lp's pretence of Moderation without so much as mentioning them in particular to say here in general terms that the points you renounced were not essential, were accidental, were errors, ulcers, opinions, hay & stubble, the plague, weeds, etc. 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 disguise her very much, and your still clamorous noises against us, envying us even that poor happiness that we are able with very much a do to keep our heads above water and not sink utterly. He proves this in ward charity by their external works, as he calls them their prayers for us; He should have said, words, the former were their works, and proved nothing but their malice. But let us examine their prayers: they pray for us he says 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 believed danger. Which shows now the greater charity? But their special external work, as he calls it, is their solemn anniversary prayer for our conversion every good friday. And this he thinks is a special piece of charity in their Church; being ignorant (good man) that this very thing is the solemn custom of our Church every good friday, as is to be seen in our Missal, 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 said to pray for us at all in particular on Good friday, or for our conversion, as he, forgetful of his own tenet, affirms. Their prayer is this, Merciful god, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldst the death of a Sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live; have mercy upon all jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics, etc. Fetch them home to thy flock, that they may be saved, etc. I ask, now, under which of these heads does he place Papists, when he pretends their conversion is here prayed for in particular? Under that of Heretics? How can this stand with his Principles, who acknowledges ours a true Church, that is, not heretical? and, lately told us, as a point of his Church's 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 Heretics, if his own Grounds & his own pretended Moderation are to be held to by himself. Much less will he say we are prayed for there under the notion of jews, 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 prayed for at all, but that there is such a pitiful dissonancy between the pretended Church of England's doctrine & her practice, that her greatest Bps & Doctors cannot make sense of one related to the other. Nay more, since he culls out this Good friday, prayer for the special external work of their charity towards us, and that this cannot concern us at all (without a self contradiction) it follows that their other external 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 Schismatics and Heretics, 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 took 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 Heretics, (and unless 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 Catholics in their Churches; though not all our Church in general, 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 Catholic & Apostolic Church, vary the grave and too authoritative phrase, (too loud (alas) for her as taken in contra distinction to us) into that dwindling, puling puritanical expressions of one flock, the rem nant of the true Israelites, one fold, under one Shepherd, etc. 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 only 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 answered that to take away goodness is the greatest evil, etc. He replies that he spoke of taking away errors. No my Ld, this was not the intent of your discourse there; both because you pretended there to prove something whereas I conceive to rely on only the cheap saying that all is erroneous you took away, proves nothing, but is a mere self supposition, as also because it is not a proof of Moderation to take away errors, but a rigorously requisite act of justice. 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 only took away something of the old. This I glanced 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 err, 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 'twas not Christ's doctrine, but errors & falsehoods, than 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 stomaches cannot digest; but if that point of immediate Tradition renounced by you, which only 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 judged necessary and now Catholic Church does, is an empty brag & vanishes into smoke by itself, since (as shall shortly be shown) their Grounds can never determine what is the Catholic or universal 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 kind of things are their thirty nine Articles? Are they of faith, or opinions only? I conceive his Lp. will not say they are mere opinions, but contra-distinctive of the Protestant faith from ours; at least the good simple Ministers were made believe so when they swore to maintain them, and unless they had certainty as strongly grounded as divine belief for those points or Articles; how could they in reason reject the contrary tenets which they held by divine belief. Now the 22. Article defines the negative to Purgatory & three other points of our doctrine; yet this ill-tutoured Child tells his old crazy mother, the Church of England, that she lies & that he knows the contrary. Now his reason is better than his position; 'tis 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 Devils shall not be saved, nor the Saints in Heaven damned, nor that there is no Salvation but through jesus-christ; all these by the Bishop's Logic 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 custom is, of Theological opinions, indifferent opinions, etc. and then on his own kind 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 mind to believe & practise what ever the Catholic Church even of this present age doth universally believe & 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 only; all other Symptoms standing in opposition to it. But the greatest foolery is, that, as I told him, they first say there is no universal Church; or, if any, indeterminate, so that no body can tell which it is, and then make a hollow-hearted profession of a readiness to believe it, and conclude themselves moderate Reformers. My Ld replies that then they have renounced their creed the badge of their Christianity. I answer, we doubt not but they have; and that, as they hold only the word Church and not the thing, so they hold only the word, the creed, and not the sense of it both in that and what other Articles their fancy pleases. Is it not then wisely argued, to think to confute us by bringing us to this absurdity (as he imagines) that then they have renounced their creed; whereas 'tis our known tenet, which we hold as undoubtedly as we do that they are out of the Church. The next absurdity he brings me to upon this account, is, that then they have renounced their reason also. As little can we doubt of this as of the former, having seen lately how you denied the first Principles and common sense almost in every particular of this discourse; and, even this present manner 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 universal 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 heretical, and show us no some common tie of ordinary Government in the Church, how will you make up of them one universal Church, which may be 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 universal Church, because you deny all Grounds which can establish such a Church.  
As for what I alleged that if they say there is a Catholic Church 'tis indetermin'd, that is none knows which it is; He answers, first, that then 'tis 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 universal or Catholic Church. One, that the particular companies, which compound it, be indeed true Churches; that is, consisting of true believers, and not heretical Congregations; without certain knowledge of which none can possibly know which is the universal Church, made up of them; The other that these particular Congregations of true believers cling together, by mean's of order, into one entire company, to be called, when thus united, one universal 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 universal; which no, but to be excluded from it as heretical: 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 universal Church, such with in it. Myself have lived in circumstances to be aswell acquainted with their doctrine as most men are; and I profess sincerely were my life at stake & only redeemable by the resolving this question, I could not determine absolutely upon any Grounds constantly acknowledged by them, whether Presbyterians, Anabaptists, or Quakers are to be excluded from the universal Church, or no. And if we cannot determine of sects so near at hand, though pressed to it by our conversation & carriage to declare & express ourselves distinctively, much less can we expect it in order to the Armenians, Ethiopians, jacobites, with whose customs and tenets we are so little acquainted  
But alas! how vain is it to expect from Protestants such a distinctivenes of true believers from false, who have no Grounds to make such a distinction. For what Principles have they to character a true believer? Is it to acknowledge the letter of the Scripture sufficient? All Heretics in the world almost own this; Arians & Socinians who deny Christ's divinity most of all. Is it the true sense 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 universal Church interpret it? This is the very thing we are in quest of, and (till we know what particular Congregations are to be 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; unless 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 believed, or no. Is it the private Spirit? The most frantic Enthusiasts than have an equal 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 Ld 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 fundamental Rule of faith and the Touch stone to try who are true believers, who not. The Puritans therefore who denied one of those Articles, to wit Ghrists' descent into Hell, must be excluded quite from the universal Church; yet we see Protestants communicate with them aswell nay more than with Anabaptists, nor are they looked 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 imagine a greater blasphemy? Again, when he says the Apostle's creed is only necessary and fundamental, he either mean's the words of the Apostles creed only, or the sense & 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 universal Church; for since points of faith are sense, and we take two Articles, to wit, that of Christ's descending into Hell & that of the Catholic Church, in a different sense, 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 universal Church. Where then is this determinate universal Church, or how shall we find it by the Protestants Principles, no certain mean's being left to determine which Congregations are worthy to be called particular Churches and so fit to compound that universal; which not, & to be excluded from her.  
For the second point; in case there were many particular Churches, yet an universal signifies one universal, every universality involving an Unity; and so, they must have some ty to unite 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 kind 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 universal Government in God's Church; therefore no universal Christian Commonwealth, that is, no universal Church.  
To show then this determinate universal Church being the proper answer for the Bishop let me see how he be haves himself in this point. First, he toys it childishly, telling us that the Protestants acknowledge not indeed a virtual Church, that is one man who is as infallible as the universal Church. I answer nor we 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 general Council: with signifies nothing, unless they first determing certainly who are good Christians and fit to vote there, who Heretics & so unfit; 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 universal; otherwise, how can a Representative of the universal Church, which is a relative word, be understood to be such, unless it be first known which is the universal Church it ought to represent. Thirdly, he tells us they acknowledge an Essential Church. I marry, now we come to the point. Expect now, Reader, a determinate universal Church, so particularly charactered that thou canst not fail to acknowledge it. The Essential Church, that is (saith he) the multitude or multitudes of believers. His [that is] seemed to promise us some determinate mark of this Church; and he only varies the phrase into [believers] a word equally obscure as the former, equally questionable, nay the self same question. For 'tis all one to ask which is a Congregation of right believers, as to ask which is a true Church. But this is his usual and even third 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 General terms & hold still to indeterminate, confused, & universal expressions, who have no Grounds to carry home to particular things.  
He concludes with telling his Reader that we are in five or six several opinions what Catholic 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 formal definition of a Church. but about what visible material 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 universal Church. Every ordinary fellow of your or our side can tell you what these are; 'tis as easy 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 mixed with others, as in England, they are distingvishable from others by most visible Marks. Our Rule to distinguish our flock from Stragglers, is the acknowledgement 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 differed 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 yourselves 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 Catholics 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 else confess you have lost the notion of an universal Church, nor hold or know any.   

Sect. 8.  
Nine or ten self contradictions in one Section. How he clears our Religion and condemns his own. The Incoherence of the former Protestans bloody laws with their own Principles. How he steals by false pretence from showing a visiblety of Unity in the Church, to invisible holes. The reason why the succession into S. Peter's dignity should continue to the Bp. of Rome Plentiful variety of follies, nonsense and quibbling mistakes. The sleight account he gives of the order Brother hood and fundamentals of his Church.  
HIs 8th Section presents us with his fifth Ground to justify their separation; and 'tis 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 be candidly explicated, we shall find it signifies the whole business, though it seem to speak coily & mincingly. Did they ever make laws to renounce and abrogate the Pope's Authority, and define absolutely against essential right? Did they ever erect an Ecclesiastical Superior (as you did the Archbishop of Canterbury) and pretend that he was in no manner of way subordinate to the Pope, but utterly 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 yourself in your vindication p. 184. after your had put down the parallel acts of Henry the 8th to other Princes, when you came to the point confess that Henry the 8th abolished the jurisdiction 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 yourself here p. 37. where you put down a gradation of the oppositions of the former Kings to the Pope tell us only, 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 utterly renounces the Pope) did, it follows plainly that they did nothing, and King Henry did all, as far as concerns our Controversy; which is not about extent of his Authority, or in what cases he may be checked from exercising particular Acts of that Authority, but about the denying the very Right itself, and (which is consequent) by denying joyintly the Rule of faith, and by those denials separating from the Body of the former Church, which held both. The signification then of this juggling phrase in effect (as applied to our purpose) by his own interpretation, is this; that other Catholic countries did just nothing, and King Henry the 8th did all. To no imaginable purpose then save only to show his diligence in nothing the political wranglings between Kings and Popes, are all the instances produced by the Bishop that Catholic Kings in such & such particular cases permitted not the Pope to execute what he intended, unless he can deny his own words and prove that they did as much as K. Henry and not threaned only.  
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 perplexed 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 yields to, than to say he grants them? We grant therefore all his particular instances of these contess between Kings & Popes, and yield willingly that such & such material facts happened & many more; not entering into that dispute how far they were done justly, how far un justly, which is little to our purpose, since the Authority itself was still acknowledged 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 justify him, is a particular point and, one; and to this I have answered particularly, both here and also in my third Section, where I have demonstrated it to be the most shameless & manifoldly contradictory absurdity, that ever bid defiance to the universal acknowledgement and ey-verdict of the whole word.  
Upon occasion of his alleging that all Catholic 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 alleging 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 than they hold it) it knows no variety of respect not times, and so if it be prejudicial in itself once 'tis prejudicial always. 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 only accused of Schism for rejecting this, not for hindering 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 prejudicial to Princes also, being the same in effect with it; and than you have evaded indeed a contradiction, but by as great an absurdity.  
Secondly, to show his former answer was nothing worth, he alleges 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. 'Tis 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 Unity in which they agree. This is our accusation against you, and so your excuses must be applied to this or else they are no excuses at all. Now one of your excuses is that the Pope's Authority is prejudicial to Princes; and it must be meant 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 only:) what needed them excuses from you to them, unless there had been a contradiction in the business. Had you opposed only some attempts of the Court of Rome by your tenet, you might have remained still united with France, Spain, &c who did (as you confess) the same in effect; but now you remain disunited from Catholic countries and their Churches in the very tenet of the Pope's Authority, held by them as our eyes testify, therefore 'tis evident 'twas the doctrine of all those Churches you lest, and would vindicate yourself for leaving by pretending that doctrine injurious to Princes, and by consequence you contradict yourself.  
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 Catholic countries concerned not faith as the Protestants renouncind the Authority itself did, I told him (Schism Disarm. p. 321.) that the Pope's did not cast out of Communion those Catholic divines which opposed them; and that this argues that it is not the Roman Religion nor any public 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 Ld to honour yourselves 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 certain Rule of Religion, cannot do so; because your new fashioned 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 'tis evident that all Catholic 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 belonged 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 yourself for rejecting the more moderate tenet of the substance of the Pope's Authority, by alleging 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 general 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 Pope's Authority which was generally held by all, and so break the unity 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 Logic can conclude such an Act pardonable by such a Plea?  
Thirdly, he 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 Ecclesiastical right, as he might have done, for violently and unjustly putting to death some Ecclesiastical 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 denied him. But did he ever excommunicate them as directly infringing the Rule of faith, or did the Catholic world ever look upon them as on Heretics when thus excommunicated, as they looked upon you renouncing in terms the very Authority itself? 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 than 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 itself which you rejected, and for rejecting it be came held by all the Churches of that Communion for Schismatics & Heretics.  
Fourthly, to let us see that he will not stand to his former Answer he tells us that the Pope & his Court had something else to do than to inquire after the tenets of private Doctors. That is, after himself had taken a great deal of pains to prove that all Catholic Kings, abetted by their Doctors and Casuists, had thus resisted the Pope in these particular cases that is, that it was Publicly done all over the whole Church, he alleges in the next place that only private. Doctors held it. So fruitful is error of contradictions.  
Fifthly, he alleges, that perhaps those Doctors lived about the time of the Counsels of constancy & 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 Portugal, in our days, and not past seven years ago, another of the Venetians in this very last age; which no [perhaps] can make happen in the time of those Counsels. Score up another self contradiction. What he means by their living perhaps out of the Pope's reach, none can tell. The Pope's Spiritual jurisdiction, by which he 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, he changes the subject of the question, for we speak of Doctors abetting Roman Catholic Kings & Kingdoms, in such opposition.  
Sixthly, he 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 Pope's 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 allege as done by Catholic countries are those for which you are excommunicate, cast out of the Church, & accused for Schismatics & Heretics 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 fruitless industries, but utterly unable to support Truth.  
I upbraided them upon occasion, for their bloody laws and bloodier execution. He refers me for Answer, to his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon. Where he makes a long-law preamble no ways 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 punished as Traitors merely 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 Saviour's Body, etc. and out of their own remitting this strange treason at the very last gasp, nay rewarding the persons often, if they would renounce their tenets & accompany them to their Churches. These are our manifest and undeniable proofs: what arguments does he hring to blind the Evidences? nothing but obscure conceits to be looked for in men's breasts, pretended fears & jealousies that all who exercised such acts of Religion were Traitors, & meant to kill and slay the Governors, or at most some particular attempts of private persons, either true or counterfeited; if some were true, it was, no wonder that such heart 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 Catholics 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: only that the faults of some should be so unreasonably reflected upon all, nay upon Religion itself, as to make the formality of guilt consist in the performing such acts of Religion, was most senseless, malicious, nay self condemning, since their own Profession admits the hearning a Confession to be a lawful act of Religion, and you would yet willingly hear them, if the people were not wiser than to go to such slightly authorised Ghostly fathers. Nor do I apprehend that you would think yourselves very well dealt with if the present Government because of some rising of some of your party against them, which they know to have been backed, 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 condemned 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 yourselves to have been most unreasonably cruel.  
In his p. 48. if he mean as he says, he 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 he means honestly, that is, as he speaks) no ways injurious to Princes. If any extent of this power, pretended to be beyond its 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 Catholic 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 be 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 only Courtesy. He alleges therefore that these instances cited by him (of Catholics disobeying the Pope in behalf of Kings,) were before these poisonous opinions were hatched, and so they do not prove that all Roman Catholics at this time are loyal subjets. Yet himself in his vindication p. 194. (so natural is self contradiction to him) told us of as violent acts done against the Pope in Cardinal Richlieu's days; in Portugal very lately, and in a manner 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 bad memory and self contradiction is ever a certain curse to falsehood) he tells us were before our seditions, opinions were hatched. Now what seditious opinions have been hatched or can be pretended to have been hatched within this five years, I dare say he is ignorant: And, lest you should think I wrong him, you shall hear him contradict himself yet oncemore (so fully does he satisfy his Reader on all sides) & affirm here p. 49. that he hopes that those seditious 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 & burial both at once, and were entombed in their shell; that is, were never hatched at all: So cruelly if you but confront the two faces of the same janus does he fall together by the ears with himself, baffle & break his self divided head, & with one splay leg trip up the other.  
After this, he presents the Reader with a plat from of the Church fancied by me, as he says; for which grievous fault he reprehends me ironically, telling me that 'tis pity I had not been one of Christ's Councillors when he formed his Church; that I am saucy with Christ, what not? Now I never apprehended Christ had any Councillors at all when he first formed his Church, till the Bishop told me he had, & wished I had been one of them; or fancied any thing at all, unless he will say that what Catholics received from their forefathers and what with their eyes we see left in the Church still, is only the work of my fancy: which is nonsense; for I only 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 showed the admirable conveniencies, the moderation, the necessity of that form of Government, how innocent if taken in its due limits (as held out to us by the Rule of faith) to temporal Government, nay how beneficial to the same, how absolutely necessary for and perfectly concerning the Unity in the Church; how impossible the said Unity is without it, etc. which, if it be Sauciness, he may with the same reason accuse all divinity of Sauciness which takes what faith hath delivered, for example that Christ was Incarnate, & thence proceeds to show the conveniency, necessity, etc. of the Incarnation; But the poor Bp. who has busied all his life in not in acquaint 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 find out the causes why or by which such things were done.  
In Answer, the Bishop pretends first that he will take my frame in pieces; whereas he not so much as handles it, or looks upon it; formine concerned a Visible ty of Church Unity, his discourse reckons up out of S. Paul seven particulars, all which (except only the common Sacrament of Baptism) are invisible & latent, & some of them no ways proper to a Church.  
The first is, one Body. Well leapt again, my Ld, you are to prove first we are one Body, if the Unity of Government (conserved by all those who acknowledge the Pope's 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? we were indeed once one Body, and as long as the members remained worthy of that Body there was no war 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 'twas 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, essential to the faithful as faith●full, derived to those members by the common Channels 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 Channels or veins the only passage for divine belief (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 slightly upon that groundless supposition.  
Secondly, one Spirit; that is the Holy Ghost which he 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; jews & all, if they but say tthey hope to go to Heaven; & who will stick to say that?  
Fourthly, one Lord; in order to which he tells us we must be friends, because we serve the same Lord Dark again! How shall we 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 we see with our eyes that they have broke in pieces his Church, & renounced the only-certain Grounds of his law, they must either's how us better Symptoms of their service and restore both to their former integrity by reacknowledging them; else we can not account them fellow servants to this Lord, but Rebels & enemies against this Lord & his Church.  
Fifthly one faith. But how they should have one faith with us, who differ from us in the only certain, that is▪ in the only Rule of faith; as also in the sense, that is, in the thing or tenet of some Articles in the creed; or, indeed, how they can have faith at all but opinion only, whose best Authors & writers confess they have no more than probability to Ground their faith, he knows not▪ & so says nothing; and therefore is not to be believed for barely saying we have one faith.  
Sixthly, one Baptism. As if Heretics who are out of the Church could not all be baptised But he tells us that by Baptism we fight under the same Standard. That we should do so because of Baptism I grant indeed; But, as he who wears the colours of his General, & 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 Martial 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 heinously enhances their accusation, and condemns you whom the undeniable matter of fact joined with your acknowledgement of ours for a true Church manifests most evidently to have done both.  
Lastly, one God who is father of all, etc. By which if it be meant that God is a father by Creation or ordinary Providence, them jews, Pagans, & Atheists are of God's Church too; if in the sense 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 show how weak a writer this Bp. is let the Reader peruse here my p. 324. & 326. and he shall see our charges is that without this Government, they have no common ty under that notion to unite them into one Christian common wealth; and therefore, that having rejected that Government, unless they can show us what other visible tie they have substituted to that, they cannot be shown to be Christians or of Christ's flock, but separates & Aliens from it. We deny them to be truly-named Christians for want of such a visible ty; now the Bishop, instead of showing us this, supposes all he was to prove; towit that they are of Christ's Church, and reckons up some invisible motives proposed by S. Paul, to Christians already acknowledged for such, to unite 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 alleged are strong motives to unite Christians in Wills; but it is as undoubted on the other side that none of them only 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 he writes to, who were all Christians. Now Christians being such because of their faith, it follows that the Unity in faith is the property to Christians as such, and consequently in Government (which, by reason of its concernment, aught in all reason to be a point of faith) & not in charity only, for this extends itself to Infidels & all the world. Since then, the Bp. goes not about to show visibly their Ground for unity 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 indicted by undeniable matter of fact to have rejected those points which were & are visibly such to the Church they broke from, 'tis no less evident that he hath not said a word to the purpose but stole it away (as his custom is) from the open field of the plain charge to invisible holes. In a word those proposals 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 joints of it recounted by the Bp. out of S. Paul invisible; yet the sincere man pretends here when he brings these invisible points to take my frame in pieces; & to look upon it in parcels. Which is to prevaricate from the whole Question, and, instead of answering, to abuse & wrong his Adversary.  
Secondly, he says he will not dispute whether Christ did give S. Peter a Principality among the Apostles, so we will be content with a Principality of order; and he wishes I had expressed myself more clearly whether I be for a beginning of order & Unity, or for a single Head of power & jurisdiction. I answer, I contend for no such singular Head ship of power, that no Bishop in the Church hath power but he; for this is known to be the Heresy which S. Gregory did so stoutly impugn when he writ against john 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 its degree & rank; as the word order imports, if taken in the Ecclesiastical sense; and as it is taken when it is applied to the Hierarchy, as for example to P●triarch●▪ Primates, Arch Bishops, Bishops, etc. Which ought to be the proper sense of it in our Controversy, it being about an Ecclesiastical preeminence. As for what he tells us that the Principality of power resides now in a general Council, besides other faults already noted, it falters in this, that general Councils are extraordinary judicatures, and never likely to happen in the sense you take a general Council. But, our Question is, whether the nature of Government require not some ordinary standing, Supremacy of power ever ready to over look the public concerns, to promote the interests & conserve the peace of the Christian Commonwealth, by subordination to whom all the faithful remain united in the notion of Governed; If this be necessary, as plain reason avouches, than we ask where you have lest this standing ordinary Principality of power, since you have renounced the Pope's Supremacy?  
Thirdly I added, and consequently to his Successors. This consequence expressed in general terms, he tells us, he likes well enough, and that such an head-shippe ought to continue in the Church; but he cannot digest it that such an Head ship should be devolued to the Bp. of Rome: yet, what other Successor S. Peter had that could be properly called 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 he 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 its continuance he is deemed likewise to have conferred it upon those to whom according to the order of nature it is to come. Now the natural order requires that offices & dignities should be devolu'd to those who succeed those persons dying who were vested with them, in case there be 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, we never read; but on the contrary we fide de facto that the Bishops of Rome in the Primitive Church enjoyed a Principality by succession, & not by nomination of the Catholic Church; nor is it convenient but extremely preter natural, that this Principality being of perpetual necessity (as he grants) the Church should remain without it at the death of every Pope, till all the Churches in japan, China, India, or where ever remotely dispersed in all parts of the habitable world, should be asked & give their consent whether the Bishop of Rome should still continue with this Principality, or no. No other means then being laid or lest to cross this way of succession, as appears by common sense and the practice of the Church, it follows that this natural 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 he pretends parallel to mine, that such a Bishop of such a see died Lord Chancellor 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 be no doubt in that case but the natural order would take place there also, and the Successors of that Bishop would succeed also into the Chancellor ship.  
Christ left (he tells us) the chief managing of his family to his spouse, that is, the Church. Pretty sense! signifying thus much that the Church or universality of christians must govern themselves, & have no chief Governor at all; Is it not rare that the Bishop should think Christ's family, and his Spouse or Church are two distinct things! What he adds, that he lest it not to any single servant further than as subservient to his spouse; is very true; and all Governors in the world are or aught to be subservient to the common good of the governed, as even the Angels are Spiritus administratorij, yet no more can the subjects command their Governors, than we can command Angels. And so the chief Church, & her Bishop the chief Governor of Christ's family are for the good of the Church, thouh over the Church; however my Ld who looks into the sounds of words & not the meaning of them, inflames the expressions, & improves them to flaunting & proud sense.  
He tells us that Rome may be destroyed with an Earthquake; I answer it must be an unheard of Earthquake which can swallow up the whole Diocese; for, if the City only run that hazard, the Clergy of the Roman Diocese yet remain who can elect to themselves a new Bishop; And no harm will succeed to our cause. Next, he says, it may become heretical or Mahometan? True, so may the whole Church if it had pleased God so to order causes. But that it pleases him not we have this strong presumption, that the good of his Church, so much concerned in the perpetuity of this succession (as hath been shown) will crave his perpetual assistance to that see. We have also for pledge of this perpetuity the experience of his gracious conservation of it for sixteen hundred years, & the establishment of it at present, not giving us the least Ground to think its ruin likely. If his Lp do, and that this trouble him, at least let him yield his obedience till that happens, and then preach liberty from Rome's jurisdiction to those that shall live in that age. What he adds concerning the Churches disposing of her offices is mere 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 Church's disposal.  
Next, he tells us that between Tyranny & Anarchy there is Aristocracy which was the ancient regiment of the Christian Church. We blame them not for renouncing any one sort of Government but all Government in the Church; and allege that there is no Kind of Government which actually unite? God's Church in one but this of the Pope's Headship. An Aristocracy signifies a Government by some chief persons, who sit either constantly or else often, & easily meet that the difficulties occurring in the ordinary Government of the Commonwealth may be settled by them. Was this the ordinary Government of the Primitive Church? Had they any general Council (which the Bishop means by Aristocracy, as appears by his p. 56. l. ult. till Constantine's time? Nay have we had any this six handred years or indeed eight hundred last past which they will acknowledge to be such! or, shall we have any for the future? they tell us not till towards the end of the world, and that even then 'tis but probable neither (See Dr H. Reply p. 30.) His position then comes to this, that Aristocracy in a general Council being the Ecclesiastical H●ad (p. 56. l. ult.) or the Government which unites God's Church, the said Church had no Head nor Government at all till Constantine's time; none between 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 Ld of Derry & Dr. Hd. But I most wonder that a man of his Principles could find 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 he 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 he who hath no power to act at all in order to the universal 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 he, who has power to act, hath. And thus my friend here feasts his Readers with contradictions, his whole discourse being such in its self & wants only to be 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 he pleased. My Bp. replies that I make the Church to be the Beast and the Pope's office to ride upon the Church. No, my Lord, I styled the Pope's office, the Bridle; do bridles use to ride upon horses? or did your Lp ever meet a bridle on horseback? I see the Bishop is a better Bowler than he is an Hors-man. Next, he tells us that our Saviour put his bridle not into the mouth but hand of his Church. Good my Ld inform us (for you chop your Logic 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 believers hold the bridle & govern themselves? Then there are no Governors at all, o●at lest none distinct from the governed, which is all one. Or, do some Governors only hold the bridle & wield by it the multitude of believers? then returns his Lp's cavil & buffets himself, that then the Church is the Beast (as he irreverently wantoness 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 we 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 he can neither approve himself a good Controvertist, nor a tolerable guibbler; but, while he pretends to be solid in the former, he still runs into contradictions; when witty in the latter he rambles into absurdities; and, in either performance, his own both Arguments & Quips light upon his own head.  
I represented the advantages & conveniences this Headship brought to the world when duly observed by good Pope's. He replies that I write dreaming as Plato did, and look upon men not as they are but as they ought to be. This mistake is of the same strain, only something more voluntary. I look not my Lord upon men at all in this place, but speak of the Office itself; 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● me; the point or tenet concerns me. The personal managing this office is not of faith, and belongs not to me but to Historians & Lawyers to talk of; the Office itself is of faith, falls under the sphere of Controversy & is my task to defendit. What say you to the Office itself, as put down here by me. Return my Ld whence you strayed; and tell us, is not the Office itself thus moderately yet substantially expressed naturally conducing to the peace, Unity, Faith, Discipline, & other universal conveniencies of Christendom? 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. he would have us look upon the case without an if or as a Pope should be; no my Lord, I ought not in reason to quit that method; you & I are not disputing about men's lives, but the Catholic tenet and whether the very tenet be advantageous to the Church or not. If we leave this we leave the whole Question. Yet we must leave the Question, else my Lord will not proceed nor dispute; telling us that if we look upon the case without an if, or, as the Pope should be (that is indeed if we look not upon the case) than we shall find the Papacy as it is settled or would have been (says he) the cause of Schisms, Ecclesiastical dissensions, war amongst Princes, etc. Where first, if nothing follows out of my words but this disiunctive (as it is settled, or would have been) than it remains for any thing he expresses, that, as it is settled, it is not apt to cause any of these inconveniences; but only would have been, in case some vicious attemptors had had the power to corrupt that which was actually well in the Church. Next, if he speak of the Papacy, as it is settled, he must look upon it as held by the Rule of faith and acknowledged by all Roman Catholics; otherwise if he considers it according to what is disputable & wrangled about between Catholic & Catholic, he considers it not as settled, for this is to be not settled: nor indeed is this to speak of the Papacy itself (about which Catholics have no debates) but of the extent of it. Now, let him either evince that Papacy as settled or held universally by all Catholics, is in its own nature the cause of Schisms, dissensions, Wars, etc. Or grant that 'tis not such, but the contrary; as he does here tacitly, by yielding that if it were as it should be it would be faultless, and presently doubting whether it be right settled, (that is, as it should be) or no.  
The substance of the Pope's Authority being stated, I showed 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 entirely conserved; the Papacy standing firm in those very Catholic countries, which resisted the Pope, and those countries governing themselves in an Unity 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 than itself, but an headless Synagogue without Brother hood or order. He replies; Neither so, nor so. How then, my Lord? why he tells us first that the Eastern Southern & Northern Churches admit none higher than the chiefest Patriarch. Well, my Ld, are you and they both jointly under the Government of those Patriarches, or any other common Government? If not, how are you then of one community or Brotherhood as Governed? Next, he alleges that agreat part of the Western Churches have shaken of the Roman Yoke. Grant it were so, and that those Congregations were in reality Churches, (which we deny) yet are you united with those Churches under some common Christian Government, joining you & them into one Christian Commonwealth? If not (as your eyes witness 'tis not) then how are you their Brothers or of their community? Show us this visible tie of order uniting you together; To say you are one or united to them, without showing us this externity, is very easy, but convinces nothing. Thirdly, he 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 only restrained, they restrained something which they admitted, as thus restrained; 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 only) that Authority which visibly united them. Where then is your Brother hood? where is your order? Fourthly, he answers, that for order, they are for it as much as we. That you are for it & desire it (if your Grounds would let you (we 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, he tells us, that for Christian Brother hood they maintain it three times larger than we; But he never goes about to show us any visible tie of Government, uniting them into one Commonwealth or Brother hood. 'Tis a sufficient proof with him to say they maintain it; that is, they call more Brothers than we do; but, whether they are so indeed or no 'tis so evident with him (though he knows his own fellows say the contrary, as may be seen in Rosse's view of Religious) that it needs no proof though it be all the Question; Sixthly, as for their being an headless Synagogue, he replies that they want no head who have Christ a spiritual Head. We are demanding a visible common Head or chief Government of the whole Church common to England with the rest, and he 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 Commonvealth. Again, this latter, towit, whether Christ be their spiritual Head or no, is invisible & unknown, and is to be judged by the other thus; that, if Christ have lest any Unity of Government in his Church and commanded it to be kept, and they have taken a course to leave no such Unity, 'tis evident that they have rebelled against Christ as well as his Church, and so falsely pretend to have him for their spiritual Head. Next, he tells us that they have a general Council for an Ecclesiastical Head. Which is to confess that there is no ordinary Unity of Government in God's Church, but extraordinary only, when a Council sits, that is, there is none de facto at present, nay morally impossible there should be any (as Dr. H. says Reply p. 39) and 'tis 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 be in Antichrist's time, who (according to their principles) will be the Head of the Church. And, lastly, that they have a gracious Prince for a political Head. Whose inward right if it be 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 successor hap to be no Protestant. But I wonder the Bishop is so discourteous to his own tenet, that whereas they ever held the King to be Head of the Church, or chief in Ecclesiastical matters, he should now deny it and put him to be only a political Head, as contradistinguished from Ecclesiastical; that is, give him no more than France, Spain, etc. Use to do to their Kings, where the Pope's Headship is acknowledged. Again, we 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 tie of Government obliging this Head to correspend with the other Head? If not, where is the Unity or common Headship of the whole, Church? or how is England visibly▪ united to it, under this notion? If there be, why should the Bp envy us the happy sight of this rarity which (& only which) would satisfy the point, clear his credit, & vindicate his Church.  
His cavil that sometimes we have two or three Heads, sometimes never an Head, is false & groundless; since there can be but one true or rightly-chosen Pope, however there may be more pretended ones; and, till he who is chosen be known & evidenced to be such, the Headship or chief Government is in the chief Clergy of the chief see, whom we call Cardinals; unless a general Council actually sit. As secure a method for the peace & Unity of a Commonwealth governed by an elective power, as man's wit can invent; though (as in all humane affairs) the contingency of the subject admits sometimes of miscarriages, sidings & animosities.  
He promises us (to show the Unity 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 only: 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 Unity 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 Unity than a body composed of Turks, jews, Heretics, and Christians; Nor does the Bp. disprove it otherwise than by reckoning up again the former motives to Unity in affections out of S. Paul: Six of which are invisible; and some of them equally pretendable nay actually pretended by Turks, Heretics, etc. As deniable to them by him; nor can they be in reason refused them, till he gives us some certain Rule of faith, obligingly & satisfactorily convincing that such sects in particular are to be admitted, such to be absolutely rejected, which he will never do without entangling himself worse than formerly. And, as for Baptism, the seve●th motive; 'tis out of doubt amongst all the world, that Heretics may have true Baptism, though the Bp. here forgets himself, & says the contrary. At least the Turks janissaries who are children of Christians, & so Baptised, cannot be refused according to his Grounds to be his Brother-Protestants; this being the only visible ty the Protestants have with the three parts of the world the Bp. so brags of.  
Lastly, I alleged, that their pretended faith consisted in unknown fundamentals, which is a mere Shist until they exhibit a list of such points & prove them satisfactorily, that they, & only they, are essential to Christian Communion. He replies, they need not do it. Why? me thinks the point seems very needful; yes, but the Apostles have done it (he says) to their hands in the creed. And how proves he that the Apostles intended this creed as a list of all fundamentals? only (for he put neither before, nor yet here any other proof) in that the Primitive Church (saith he) hath ordained that no more should be exacted of any, of Turks, or jews in point of faith, when they were converted from Paganism or jewism to Christianity. And, how proves he 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 only fundamental, or that they have any list of fundamentals, and consequently that there is any Grounds of Unity in material points amongst the Protestant Churches, or that they are of the Church, since the Church hath in herself Grounds of Unity. I omit that the learned Bp. makes account Turks are Pagans, or to be converted from Paganism; whereas, 'tis known they acknowledge a God: and affirms that the Primitive Church in the Council of Ephesus (for to this he relates as appears p. 5.) held in the year 430. ordered 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 he says the Apostles creed is a list of all fundamentals; either he means the letter of the creed, and then he grants Socinians & Arians to be 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 fundamental, towit, Christ's descent into Hell. Or else, he means the sense of the creed; and then he excludes the Roman Catholics, whom yet in other circumstances he acknowledges to be of the Church; for they hold some Articles found there, in another sense 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 he means the letter only or the sense of the creed; then show us satisfactorily which is the only true sense of it; and, lastly, apply that piece of doctrine to particulars, and so show us which sects are of the Church, which excluded, & we 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 he terms, Fortifying. With what incomparable art he clears himself of another. And, how he totally neglects the whole Question & the Duty of a Controvertist in impugning opinions acknowledg'dly held only 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 he makes account he hath done so strongly that he needs not fortify any thing; yet, he will needs do a needless bufines, and goes about to fortify (as he calls it) in his way not with standing.  
To the first argument (saith he) he 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 be a Mother but a Sister only; 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 'tis the same with Domina, and correlative to Serua, a slave or hireling 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 scholar; 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 sense that we 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 Ld of Derry may please then to understand that when we say that the Roman Church is Mother & Mistress of other Churches; we 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. be loath to grant the word [Mistress] taken in our sense, (which yet he never goes about to impugn or disprove) let him but allow & stand to what the testimony himself brings here avouches, to wit that she is Mother of other Churches, and that she hath right to rule and teach her children as a Mother should do, & 'tis as much as we desire.  
Now, let us apply this & see how rarely the Bishop hath cleared himself of Schism & laid it at our do●e: He hath brought a testimony which asserts the Church of Rome to be the Mother of other Churches, and so of the Church of England too, if she 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 & public writings, that her good Daughter the Church of England tells her flatly she will not, ought not obey her; and thus by the Bp's Logic she becomes acquitted of Schism. Which I must confess is not only a needles but a sleeveles manner of fortifying. Again, Schism involves in its notion disobedience, and the Bishop in this chapter pretends to show her Schismatical, that is disobedient; to do which he brings us a testimony which asserts our Church to be Mother of other Churches; and then concludes the Mother Schismatical, because she is disobedient to her Daughter: Pithy nonsense! or, if made sense, flatly accusing their Church of Schism for disobeying her Mother; and this deducible clearly from that very testimony he brought to prove the contrary, which kind of arguing is in the Bps phrase called needles fortifying.  
His pretence of a new creed (which was his second argument to prove us Schismatical) made by Pope Pius the fourth, is already shown (Sect. 1.) to be a calumny: To which I add, that our creed is the points of our belief or faith: since then 'tis known that each point in that Profession of faith put out by him, was held as of faith by the former Church, ere he thus collected them, 'tis a contradiction to pretend that he 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 contains all necessary points of faith, which will be manifested at the Greek calends.  
His third argument was because we maintain the Pope in a rebellion against a general Council. To this he says 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 several 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 general Council, else in impugning that point he totally prevaricates from the office of a Controvertist, hath done nothing which was his duty, and so merits no answer save only this, that if he will dispute against private opinions, he must cite his Authors, & argue against them not the Church; whose belief is contained in the decrees of Councils, and universal consent of fathers & Doctors. Which answer I then gave him expressly, Schism Disarm. p. 327▪  
Now, to show the vanity of this third argument, let him either manifest that our Church pressed 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 pressed, his argument stands thus; very many Schoolmen & a great party among them held that opinion, where upon we left their Church; ergo, they are most guilty of the Schism. Which is as senseless a paralogism as a sleepy brain could have stumbled on. For, why should any break Church-Communion as long as he can keep it with conscience? or, how is my conscience concerned in other men's opinions as long as they permit me to hold the contrary: Now, that our Church permits the contrary tenet, and denies none Communion for it, himself testifies vindication p. 200. where he puts down as one of the tenets of the now-french Church, that general Councils are above the Pope, and may depose him, etc.  
The Bishop was conscious that he 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 he ought, he joins both, however in consistent, into one; and, being to wrangle against the Pope's Headship, proposes it first under this chimerical notion, The Papacy (Quà talis, or, as such) as it is maintained by many. And this he calls laying the Axe to the root of Shism, though it be as directly levelled a stroke at his own legs, and inflicting as deep a wound on the supports of his cause as a contradiction can give to pretended sense. For since all Papists as such hold a Papacy or the Pope's Headship of jurisdiction 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 than 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 only: which is in other language to legitimate an Hircoceruus, and to clap together non ens and ens into the same notion.  
But, how does he clear himself of this shuffling nonsense? why first he asks, do not some Roman Catholics subject the Pope to a general Council; and others, nay the greater part of them, &c subject a general Council to the Pope? What is this to the Question whether these words [the Papacy as such, as it is now maintained by many] cohere in sense or no?  
Secondly, he asks whether he might not then well say [the Papacy quà talis, etc.] No, my Ld, for, it being evident that all Roman Catholics hold the Papacy in some sense, if you call it the Papacy as such as it is held by many, pray how will you style it as held by all? as not such? or the Papacy with super additions? or can all hold what some do not hold?  
Thirdly, he says, his conclusion was not against the Church of Rome in general, 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 general of Schism, for the Church in general 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, unless they had denied you Communion for holding the contrary, or pressed upon you an unconscientious approbation of it, which you know they did not Fool not your Readers my Ld; 'twas not for this tenet which you impute to the Court of Rome, but for that of the Pope's Headship or Spiritual jurisdiction over all God's Church, held by all Catholics 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 only) thus opposite to you in that mainly-concerning point.  
Fourthly, as he says although, aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus, that is, sometimes honest Homer takes a nod, and though he had stolen a nap it had been neither felony nor treason, yet to let us see he did not sleep, he will put his argument into form without a [quâ talis] which is to affect a sleepiness still, or (as our English Proverb says) to sleep fox sleep. He is accused of a contradiction & nonsense, and to clear himself he tells us he will now lay aside one part of the contradiction, and endeavour to make good sense of the other. Now his first argument is that the Court of Rome is guilty of Schism for preferring the Pope before a general Council, to which I have already answered. His second, is that ours are thus guilty for making all Apostolical succession & Episcopal jurisdiction come from Rome only. By which, if he means our Church as a Church holds it; (as he ought if he speak like a Controvertist) 'tis a most gross & false imputation, as I told him: If of the Court of Rome only, then, since they neither pressed it as of faith nor denied you Communion for these points, but for another held by all (as I lately showed) they cannot hence be concluded guilty nor you guiltless of Schism. This argument passed over, he confesses this tenet is not general amongst us; I add, but points of faith are generally held, therefore this tenet is but an opinion; and being not general (as he grants) it follows that it is only a particular or private opinion; as I called it, & his own words evince it.  
Yet he is loath these should be called private opinions because they are most common & most current: Whereas, unless they come down recommended by our Rule of faith, immediate Tradition or the voice of the Church, & so become perfectly common, general, universal, & undoubtedly current, our Church looks upon them only as deductions of private men's reasons, nor shall I own them for other.  
That the former is a common tenet he 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 revealed, or that the revelation fell an inch or two short of reaching our knowledge; or, that God has not indeed revealed it, but yet that 'twas twenty to one but he had done it. Next that the Council of Florence seemed to have defined it: now the word [seems] signifies I know not that ever it defined it at all; or, if it defined it so, 'tis more than I know. Thirdly, that the Council of Lateran (I suppose he means not the general Council there held) defined it most expressly Yet the Bp, here descanting upon the words of that Council, says only that they seem to import no less; that is, it may be they mean no such thing, or it may be they mean much less.  
For the latter opinion (as he candidly here calls it) he tells us Bellarmine declares it to be most true, that he citys 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 we very innocently broke God's Church; or, therefore we quite renounced the Principles of Unity in both faith & Government (as the fact witnesss 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 myself concerned, as a Controvertist, to interrupt their dispute or ●oyn mine interest with either party however did I pretend 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 Ld of Derry's vain pretence of his Churches large Communion. His frivolous and groundless exceptions against the Council of Trent. How weakly he clears himself of calumny And how, going about to excuse his citing a Testimony against himself he brings three or four proofs to make good the accusation.  
He pretended that the Protestants held Communion with thrice as many Christians as we do. I replied that if by Christians hea means those who lay claim to the name of Christ I neither denied his Answer nor envied him his multitude; for Manichees, Gnostics, Carpocratians, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and others without number, do all usurp the honour of this title. I added that I did not think he 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 he admits some of these & rejects others. But 'tis 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 he falls into rhetorical exclamations against our prejudice, partiality, want of truth, charity, candour, & ingenuity Words are but vapour; let him put certainly-established 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 exclamations which sound so high in Rhetoric, 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, he 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 material points held by the Manichees, Gnostics, etc. 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 material points that I accused the Church of England or the Bp. as he purposely misrepresents me; 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 Heretics recurred still & relied 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 sense, he must either show us some determinate certain way to arrive to the true sense 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 happed not to light into all the same material errors as did the Manichees, Arians, etc. Yet they agree with them in the source of all error; that is, in having denied and renounced the only Ground of faith's 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 denial of this is in its consequences equally nay more pestilential than is the denying the material point itself of Christ's divinity, or the asserting any other held by the worst of those Heretics; They agree with them all therefore in the root of all errors, though the branches chance (and they but chance) to be divers; as may be 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, witness the books of the Socinians; for 'tis an easy matter out of affection to turn Scripture to variety of errors, as was clearly seen in Luther; who because Carolostadius had published 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, he 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 he hath a mind to cling in very brotherly and lovingly with the Nestorians & Eutychians, though he says he will not; and those tenets of theirs which in the close of his paragraph he pretends to detest as accursed errors, here he strokes with a ge●tle hand, assuring us they are nothing but some unusual expressions: as if all heresies when expressed were not expressions, and also very unusual & new to faith & the faithful Now their unusual expressions were only these, that Christ had two distinct persons, and no distinct natures; which are nothing in the Bp's mind; had they denied Christ to be God too, it had been also an unusual 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 he knows not in excuse of those Heretics, though it be contrary to the public and best intelligence we have from those remote countries.  
Fourthly, he is very piously rhetorical & 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 he says) that they are either wheat or chaff, I confess I am at a loss to conceive. Chaff Ps. 1. v. 5. signifies the ungodly, and Mat. 3. v. 12. (the very place which his Allegory relates to) it is said that Christ will burn the chaff (of his floar) in unquenchable fire: which, me thinks, is far from best. So miserably the Bp. comes of still, whether he intends to speak finely or solidly. Our tongues indeed shall not winnow them, as he says, nor do we pretend, to do so by our tongues, or voluntary talking (that were to usurp the method of discourse proper to himself only) but our reason will winnow them unless we turn Beasts & use it not; our proofs, if they be evident, as our charge of their Schismatical breach is, will winnow them; the Rule of faith (the voice of the Church or immediate Tradition) will winnow, or rather Christ hath winnowed 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 'tis 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 winnowed yourselves 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 we, 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, he sometimes wrongs us both. The Greeks place (saith he) much of their devotion 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 justification, not in faith, but in works. The sacrifice of the Mass is used for the quick and the dead. They believe there is a third place between that of the blessed and the damned, where they remain who deferred repentance till the end of their life; If this place be 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 believe that the souls of the dead are bettered by the prayers of the living. They are no less for the Church's Authority and Traditions than Roman Catholics be 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 he mentions indeed in which they differ from us both, as in denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost, not using Confirmation, observing the jewish Sabbath with the Ld's day, etc. As also, some practices, not touching faith, in which they hold with the Protestants, not with us; as in administering the Sacrament in both kinds, using leavened bread in the Sacrament, Priest's marriage, there is no one point, produced by him, which our Church looks upon as a point of faith in which they descent from us and consent with the Protestants except that one of denying the Pope's Supremacy; for their only not using Extreme-Vnction, which he intimates signifies not that they hold it unlawful, or deny it. judge then candid Protestant Reader, of they Bp's sincerity, who brags of his holding Communion with thrice as many Christians as we do; whereas, if we come to examine particulars, they neither communicate in one common Government, one common Rule of faith, if we may trust this Author of their own side (since if the Greeks hold the Authority of the Church and Traditions as much as Catholics do, as he says, they must hold it as their Rule of faith, for so Catholics hold it) nor yet in any one material point in opposition to us, save only 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 be 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 Latin, and one of the gravest Bp's and Authors of that party, who shuts up his book concerning the Pope's Primacy, in these words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The sum is this; As long as the Pope preserves order, and stands with truth, he is not removed from the first and his proper Principality, and he is the Head of the Church, and chief Bishop, and the successor of Peter and of the rest of the Apostles, and it behoves all men to obey him, and there is nothing which can detract from the honour due to him; but if, when he hath once strayed from the Truth, he will not return to it, he will be liable to the punishment of the damned. Where, the Reader will easily judge whether the former words sound more incliningly to the Catholic or the Protestant tenet; and, as for the latter words, But if, etc. There is no Catholic but will say the same. Thus much then for my Ld of Derry's Communion with the Eastern Church. And as for his Communion with the Southern, Northern, & Western Churches, which he thunders out so boldly as if all the world were on his side and of his Religion, if examined 'tis no better than the former; sense his side denies immediate Tradition of forefathers or the living voice of the present Church to be the Rule of faith, which is to the Roman Church the fundamental of fundamentals. Nor has he any other Rule of faith, that is, a plain and certain method of interpreting Scripture common to him and his weakly related Brethren; so that if they hit sometimes in some points, 'tis but as the Planets, whichare ever wand'ring, 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 crossed by diacentricall oppositions.  
The rest of this paragraph insists again upon his often answered saying that the creed contains all necessary points, which is grounded only upon his falsifying the Council of Ephesus, as hath been shown heretofore. To my many former replies unto this pretence I add only 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 be a necessary point, than 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 he adds of our having changed from our Ancestors in opinions; either he means by opinions, points of faith held so by us, and then 'tis calumny, and is to be solidly proved not barely said; But, if he mean School opinions, what hurt is done that those things should be changed which are in their own nature changeable? He imagines that Dr. Field hath proved some thing against us in this point, and in answer shall imagine that those of ours who have replied to his toys have disproved what he is pretended to have proved: nor am I further concerned, unless the Bp. had produced some weighty particular out of him which yet wanted answering, as he brings none at all.  
After this he will needs prove the Council of Trent not to have been a General one. His exceptions that the summons were not general, that the four Protopatriarches 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 be frivolous & impertinent, till he 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 Summoned thither (unless to be called to the Bar as Delinquents) nor to sit there, nor are to be accounted Christians; and so the summons may be General, all may be there that should be there, and some may be present from the greater part of all Christian Provinces, notwithstanding the neglect or absence of these aliens. He ought then first put Grounds who are good Christians, & aught to be called, who not; ere he can allege their not being called as a prejudice to the Council. Our Grounds why it was general are these. The only 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 & only those who adhere to this root are to be 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 entire, universal & General, though those latter (who are not of the Church) be neither called, Summoned nor present, provided those others who adhere to this root of faith and so are indeed Christians, or adherers to Christ's law, be Summoned & admitted: But such was our Council of Trent; therefore it was General. Now, to disprove this Council to be General, if he would go to work solidly, the Bp. should first allege that it was not a sufficient representative of the whole Church, which must be done by manifesting definitely and satisfactorily, who in particular are of the Church, who not: nor can this be performed otherwise than by showing some Rule & root of faith & Christianity better qualified to be 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, etc. 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 Summoned that aught to have been Summoned, all were there or might have been there who ought to have been there, and so the Council was General. Till this be done all his big worded pretences of the absence of the whole Provinces, of the greater part of Christendom, want of due summons, fewnes of the members present, that the Greeks are not known Rebels, etc. are convinced to be 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. He says that the Greeks though Heretics should have been lawfully heard & condemned in a general Council. What needed hearing, when themselves in the face of the whole world publicly confessed, maintained, & avowed their imputed fault: Condemned they were by general Councils heretofore, though the Bp's particular faculty of saying what he lists without a word of proof will not allow them to be such, nor yet give us some certain way to know which Councils are such. Or, had it been an acknowledged general Council and they heard & condemned there, still the Bp. had an evasion in lavender; he 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 jurisdiction over them; and then he is secure by talking boldy & proving nothing.  
His saying that though they were Heretics yet they of all others ought especially to have been Summoned: signifies thus much, that it is more necessary to a general Council that Heretics be called thither, than that Orthodox fathers be so. A substantial piece of sense & worthy consideration!  
I brought a similitude of a Parliament that known and condemned Rebels need not be called, he will needs have it run on four feet & prosecutes it terribly: some of his best trifles I shall reckon up.  
First, he says the Pope hath not that Authority over a general 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 than I should know ●ow great the Authority of King or Parliament is by naming only 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 bigness 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 sense, but they must not serve me to take.  
Secondly, that the Greek Patriarches are not known & condemned Rebels. Answer, this is only said again, not proved, and so 'tis sufficient to reply that they who called the Council & all in the Council held them so. Again, the errors which they publicly maintained have been condemned by Councils, & for the most part some of their own party being present. Now, why those who publicly profess those Errors should need a further calling to trial, or why they are not known Rebels is the Bp's task to inform us.  
Thirdly, he says, that the least Parliament in England had more members than 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 be a Parliament of England without having the fifth part of the members found in that Council, and yet be a lawful one too? Rub up your memory, my L d. (you pretend to be a piece of a Lawyer) and I believe you will find an English law that Sixty members is a sufficient number to make a lawful Parliament; and before that law was made common consent & custom (which is either equivalent or perhaps above law) gave the same for granted.  
Fourthly, he excepts against the supper proportioned multitude of members out of one Province, which he says never lawful Parliament had. I ask, if other Provinces would neither send a fit number nor they had a mind to come, by what law, by what reason should it render illegitimate either Parliament or Council? Now, 'tis certain and not denied 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 principal business being to testify the Tradition of former ages, & a small number of Bishops serving for that; and the collateral or secundary business being to examine the difficulties those Heretics, which were the occasion of the Council, produced, that they might be confuted fully, & out of their own mouths, which is a thing to be 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; unless perhaps my Ld will pretend that had those Catholic Bp's out of other Provinces been there, they would have voted against their fellow Catholics in behalf of Luther or Calvin. which were a wise Answer indeed.  
Fifthly he excepts that the Council of Trent is not received in France in point of Discipline. What then? why, by his parallel to a Parliament he concludes hence 'twas no lawful 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 general & lawful Council, and receives it in all determinations belonging to faith, which are so essential to it as it were disacknowledged, were they denied; though not in matters of fact, which are accidental to its Authority, nay allowed by the Church itself (however made & expressed generally) to bind particular countries only in due circumstances & according to their conveniencies.  
Lastly, he alleges that they were not allowed to speak freely in the Council of Trent. Which is a flat calumny; and though most important to his cause could he prove it, yet after his bold custom, 'tis only 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 only a jeering expression (any thing will serve the Bp.) 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 & Catholics; & so not likely to descent in vo●ing Doctrines; which kind of votes are essential to a Council & pertinent to our discourse, which is about Doctrines not about Discipline.  
After this he puts down three solutions (as he calls them) to our plea of the patriarchal Authority. First, that Britain was no part of the Roman Patriarchate. And this he calls his first solution. Secondly that though it had been, yet the Popes have both quitted & forfeited their patriarchal 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 patriarchal 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 Ecclesiastical Authority of divine Institution; not a Patriarchate only, of humane Institution. If further answer be demanded, first, the Greek Schismatics, our enemies, confess that England was a part of the Pope's Patriarchate if it be truly called a Western Church; see Barlaam Monachus de Papae Principatu, c. 11 and Part. 1. Sect. 15. of the adjoining Treatise. Next, it is falsely pretended that the Pope's have either quitted or forfeited their patriarchal Authority; and may with equal reason be concluded, that a Bishop quits Episcopal Authority if he is also a Patriarch; or that a person must leave of to be Master of his own family, because he is made King and his Authority universally extended to all England. Which last instance may also serve against the pretended inconsistency of the Papal and patriarchal power, if it need any more answer than what hath formerly been given Sect. 4.  
I omit his calumnies against the Papal Authority charactering it falsely as a mere unbridled tyranny. And his thrice repeated nonsense; when he joins in one notion patriarchal Authority: a Patriarchy being a Government by one, an Aristocracy by many. Nor is his other calumniating expression much better when he calls the Papal Authority, a Sovereign Monarchical Royalty: since it was never pretended by Catholics that the Pope is the King of the Church.  
The notion of Priest and Sacrifice being relative, the failing of the one destroys the other: since then the Protestants have no Sacrifice they are convinced to have no Priests. This point in particular he never touched, but talked 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 only replies that he over did and set down the point of Sacrifice over distinctly. Next, he tells us their Registers are public offices, whether any man may repair at pleasure. whereas, our question is not of the Registers in general, but of that one particular pretended Register of the right ordination of Protestant Bishops, kept concealed from the free perusal of Catholics though the circumstances (to wit their alleging the unlawfulness of the Protestant Bishop's ordination) required it should be shown.  
His next paragraph concerning their uncharitableness needs not be repeated unless it could be mended.  
My expedient to procure peace & Unity, which was to receive the root of Christianity, a practical infallibility in the Church, he seems willing to admit of. Only he adds that the greater difficulty will be what this Catholic Church is; and indeed to his party 'tis an insuperableone; though to us most facile, as I have shown formerly, Sect. 7.  
He called the Bishops of Italy, the Pope's parasitical pensioners; I replied, it seemed his Lordship Kept a good table and had great revenues independent on any. He answers, he was not in passion, and that he Spoke only against mere Episcopelles; which is to show that his passion is nothing abated yet; by adding such unsavoury Phrases to his former calumny. Next, he says that, as for his self, he never raised himself by any insinuations. I know, my Ld, you are a Saint: but the point is can you clear yourself from calumny and prove that those Bishops (whom otherwise you calumniate) ever used such insinuations. He was never (he says) parasitical pensioner to any man, nor much frequented any man's table. You are still more Saint then formerly, my Ld: 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? He adds, that, if his own table be not so good as it hath been yet contentment & a good conscience is a continual feast. Much good may it do you, my Ld; fall to, and eat heartily; cannot you far well & hold your tongue, but you must amongst your dainties slander your Neighbours, men better than yourself, by calling them parasites, Episcopelles, the Pope's creatures, hungry, etc. 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 he proves these worthy persons to be hungry parasitical pensioners, which unless he does he yields himself to be a malicious calumniator. Now, his proof of it is contained in those words, whether those Bishops were not his hungry parasitical pensioners they knew best, who know most. Well argued my Ld; there's none can overthrow such a proof, because it is impossible to know where to take hold of it. Or, if any can be taken, 'tis this that the Bp. of Derry knows better than 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 examine his conscience truly, whether he does not get his living by preaching that doctrine which he puts in his books, the which how many notorious falsities contradictions & tergiversations they have in them may be judged by this present work. Now, if he does, let him consider whether any like parasitism can be 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, merely to get his own bread; for your other actions my Ld I neither know what you do, nor think it handsome to inquire.  
In the close he pretends to satisfy an exception of mine found in Schism Disarmed. 'Twas this, that he quoted a testimony from Gerson against himself, which showed that the Greeks acknowledged the Pope's Authority, by their departing from the then Pope (as Gerson says) with these words, we acknowledge thy power, we cannot satisfy your covetousness, live by your selves. He replies & endeavours to show that by [Power] in that place is meant not Authority, nor just power, but might. Whereas.  
First the very opposition of [Power acknowledged] to (covetousness which they could not satisfy) argues that their sullen departure proceeded from their sticking at the latter, not the former, which was there acknowledged: Now if [might] were signified by the word [Power] in that place, the sense of the whole would stand thus; we separate not for want of acknowledging thy might, but for want of power to satisfy thy covetousness, which is as good as nonsense. For, if he had might to force them, what sense is there to say, we depart because we cannot satisfy your avarice, when departing could not save them? whereas, in the other sense it runs very currently; we separate not for the fault of acknowledging thy Authority or just power, but, because (however this be just, yet) it is impossible we should satisfy your covetousness.  
Secondly, what, might or power, except that of Spiritual jurisdiction, the Pope can be pretended to have then had over the Greeks, appears not: It was meant therefore of no such might, but of a rightfulness of power.  
Thirdly, whereas he says that Gerson apprehended the words in his sense, & citys the context for it, the very proof he 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 & believe one & the same form of Government in things that do not immediately concern the truth of our faith and the Gospel. After which testimony the Bp. adds these words: From thence he proceedeth to set down some different customs of the Greek & Latin Churches, both which he doth justify, citing S. Austin to prove that in all such things the custom of the country is to be 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 lawfulness 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 covetousness, and touches not at all the point of power or might, as he will have it. Let us take then Gersons sense in the former, and mine of just power in the latter, and the discourse stands thus, that though men acknowledge the rightful power of Pope's, yet they ought not generally be bound to their positive determinations in things not of faith, but belonging only to the several forms of Government & customs in several countries, as paying subsidies, duties, etc. And pertinently to the same sense, the Greeks might be imagined, as indeed they did, to answer. We acknowledge thy power, or cannot deny your rightful Authority, but esteem not ourselves bound to obey your determinations importing such covetous demands, contrary to the custom and Privileges of our Church; wherefore we think ourselves excused not to meddle with you at all.  
Fourthly, the Bp. says 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 sense; towit, that it was there upon (as the Bp. confesses) that is, upon their denying subsidies, not upon their denying the rightfulness of his power as coming under another & a cheaper notion, that they separated.  
Fifthly, the very demanding subsidies, had there not been some preacknowledged power to Ground & countenance such a demand, seems incredibile, & had required a more positive Answer, than (we cannot satisfy your covetousness) 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 says, we owe you indeed subjection, but not such a subjection as engages us to satisfy your encroaching demands.  
Lastly, he says 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 acknowledgement of the Pope's just power was retained by the Greeks, and encroachments upon their Liberties only denied, which the French Church intended to imitate; Now, 〈◊〉 cannot be pretended with any shame that Gerson and the french Church meant to disacknowledge the Pope's just power, as Head of the Church, nor will Gersons words even now cited let it be pretended; for then without any (perhaps) not only some (as he doubts) but all in the Court of Rome would most certainly have contradicted it. Their consideration then being parallel to that of the Greeks, as the Bp. grants, it followed that they acknowledged the Pope's Authority though they passively remained separate rather than humour a demand which they deemed irrational.  
Thus the Bishop first cited a testimony against himself, as was shown in Schism Disarmed; and would excuse it by bringing three or four proofs, each of which is against himself also; so that as he begun like a Bowler, he ends like one of those Artificers, who going to mend one hole use to make other three.  

THE CONCLUSION.  
The Controversy between us is rationally and plainly summed up in these few Aphorisms.  
1. THat (whatsoever the Extent of the Pope's Authority be or be not, yet) 'tis cl are 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 be Supreme Ecclesiastical Governor in God's Church. This is evident out of the very terms, since to acknowledge the Papal Authority is to be 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 Unity of Government. This is plain likewise out of the terms; since an acknowledgement of one Supreme Governor either in Secular, or Spiritual affairs is the Ground which establishes those acknowledgers in submission to that one Government; that is, 'tis to them a Principle of Unity in Government.  
3. 'Tis evident and acknowledged that (whatever some Catholics 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 Pastors and Fathers of Family's, shall unanimously conspire to teach and deliver Learners and Children to have been received from their immediate fathers as taught by Christ and his Apostles, is to be undoubtedly held as indeed taught by them, that is, is to be held as a point of faith; and that the voice of the present Church thus delivering is infallible, that is, that this delivery from immediate forefathers as from theirs, as from Christ, is an infallible and certain Rule of faith, that is, is a Principle of Unity in faith. This to be 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 innovate against this tenure.  
4. 'Tis manifest that all the Churches in Communion with Rome equally held at the time of the Protestant Reformation in K. Henry's days these two Principles as they do now, that is, the substance of the Pope's Authority or that he is Supreme in God's Church, and that the living voice of the present Church delivering as above said is the infallible Rule of faith This is manifested by our Adversary's 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 renounced 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 proved to have been the Principles of Unity both in faith and Government.  
6. That Body of Christians or that Christian Commonwealth consisting of the then-Church of England and other Churches in Communion with Rome, holding Christ's law upon the said tenure of immediate Tradition and submitting to the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of the Pope, was a true and real Church. This is manifest by our very Adversaries acknowledgement, who grant the now Church of Rome, even without their Church, to be a true and real one, though holding the same Principles of Unity 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 Unity. For the undoubted acknowledgement of one common Rule of faith to be certain is in its own nature apt to unite those acknowledger's in faith, that is, to unite them as faithful and consequently in all other actions springing from faith And the undoubted acknowledgement of one Supreme Ecclesiastical Governor gave these acknowledgers an Ecclesiastical Unity or Church-communion under the notion of Governed or subjects of an Ecclesiastical Commonwealth. Now nothing can more nearly touch a Church, than the Rules of faith and Government, especially if the Government be of faith and received upon its Rule. Seeing then these principles gave them some Unity, and Communion as Faithful, and as belonging to an Ecclesiastical Commonwealth, it must necessarily be Church Unity, 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 Pope's Supreme power to act in Ecclesiastical affairs, and also to hold divers points, which the former Church immediately before the breach, had received from immediate Pastors & fathers, as from Christ.  
9 Hence follows avoidable, 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 'tis proved that those two Principles made Church Communion, that is, caused Unity 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 Unity of the Church or Schismatized.  
10. This renouncing those two Principles of Ecclesiastical Communion, proved to have been an actual breach of Church Unity, was antecedent to the Pope's excommunicating the Protestants, and his commanding Catholics to abstain from their Communion. This is known, and acknowledged by all the world; nor till they were Protestants by renouncing those Principles could they be excommunicated as Protestants.  
11. This actual breach of Church Unity in K. Henry's, Ed the 6ths and the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign, could not be imputable to the subsequent Excommunication, as to its cause. 'Tis plain, since the effect cannot be before the cause.  
12. Those subsequent Excommunications, caused not the actual breach or Schism between us. For the antecedent renouncing those two points, shown to have been the Principles of Ecclesiastical Unity, had already caused the breach, disunion or division between us; But, those between whom an actual division is made are not still divisible, that is, they who are already divided are not now to be divided: Wherefore, however it may be pretended, that those Excommunications made those Congregations, who were antecedently thus divided, stand at farther distance from one another; yet 'tis most senseless and unworthy a man of reason to affirm that they divided those who were already divided ere those Excommunications came. Especially, since the Rule of faith, and the substance of the Pope's Authority consist in an indivisible, and are points of that nature, that the renouncing these is a Principle of renouncing all faith and Government: For, who so renounces any Rule may, nay ought, if he go to work consequently, renounce all he holds upon that Rule, whether points of faith, or of Government, nay even the letter of God's written word itself; that is, all that Christ left us, or that can concern a Church.  
13. The renouncing those two Principles of the former Church Unity, as it evidently disunited men's minds in order to faith and Government; so, if reduced into practice, it must necessarily disunite or divide them likewise in external 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 Unity were de facto put in practice, by the Reforming party; and consequently, they divided the Church, both internally and externally. This is most undeniably evident; since they preached, writ and acted against the Tradition, or delivery of the immediately foregoing Church as erroneous in many points, which she delivered 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 faithful. And, as for the former Government, they absolutely renounced its influence in England, preached, 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, punished and put to death (and that upon the score of Religion) many of the maintainers of those two Principles of Church Unity.  
15. Hence follows that the Protestants breach was a perfect and complete fact of Schism. For, it divided the former Ecclesiastical Body both internally and externally, and that, as it was an Ecclesiastical Body, since those two said Principles concerned Ecclesiastical Unity.  
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 Unity both in faith and Government, and so broken Church Unity, to be excommunicated by that Body from which those Renouncers thus broke, as it is towards rebels, who have renounced both Supreme Government and fundamental laws of a Commonwealth, and so, divided the Temporal Body, to be denounced and proclaimed Rebels by the same Commonwealth. Fitting, since the effect of it they most resent, which was to keep the true faithful apart in Ecclesiastical actions from them, signified no more than this, that they who had broken both internally and externally from the former Body should not be treated with, in Ecclesiastical carriages, as still of it, nor be 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 be allowed to treat together commonly in such actions in which their opposition must necessarily, and frequently burst out and discover itself; which will inevitably disgust the more prudent sort, hazard to pervert 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 be needless to add any more to prove them formal Schismatics, themselves confessing that such a fact cannot be justifiable, 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 allege that,  
17. The very doing an Extern fact, of so heinous a Nature, as is breaking Church Unity concludes a guilt in the Actors, unless they render reasons truly sufficient to excuse their fact. This is evident, a fortiori, by parallelling this to facts of far more inferior malice. For, who so rises against a long settled, and acknowledged Temporal power, is concluded by that very fact of rising to be a Rebel, unless he render sufficient reasons, why he rose. Otherwise, till those reasons appear, the Good of Peace, settlement, order and Unity, which he evidently violates by his rising conclude him most irrational, that is, sinful, who shall go about to destroy them. The like we experience, to be 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, unless they give sufficient reasons of this disobedience, the order of the world, which consists in such submission of inferiors, to formerly-acknowledged Superiors gives them for faulty for having broken, and inverted that order. How much more than the fact of breaking Church Unity, since this entrenches upon an order infinitely higher, to wit Mankind's order to Beatitude, and in its own nature dissolves, that is, destroys Christ's Church by destroying its Unity; 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 be as many faiths as particular Congregations; as we see practise't in Luther's pretended Reformation, and this last amongst us.  
18. No reasons can be sufficient to excuse such a fact, but such as are able to convince that 'twas better to do that fact, than not to do it. This is most Evident; since, as when reason convinces me 'tis worse, to do such a thing I am beyond all excuse irrational, that is, faulty in doing it; so, if I be convinced that 'tis, 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 convinced of the equality of their Goodnesses, 'tis clear my action in this case cannot spring from reason. 'Tis left then that none can act rationally nor by consequence excusably, unless convinced that the fact is better to be done, than not to be done.  
19 In this case, where the point is demonstrable, and of highest concern, no reason merely probable, how strongly soever it be such, can convince the understanding, that the Contrary was better to be done, but only a manifest, and rigorous demonstration. For, though in the commoner sort of humane actions an high Probability, that the thing is in itself better, be sufficient for action, yet there are some things of a nature, so manifest to all Mankind to be universally good, that nothing, but rigorous Evidence, can be pretended a Ground sufficient to oppose them. For example, that Parents are to be honoured, that Government is to be in the world, that Unity of Government is to be kept up in God's Church, that there ought to be 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 beneficial, and consequently an universal harm, or rather a deluge of inconveniences, and mischief break in if the Actor against these should hap to be in the wrong; he is, therefore, bound in these cases not to act till he sees the utmost that is to be seen concerning such affairs; but affairs of this nature are demonstrable, or rather self evident (as is said) on the one side, therefore he ought not to act, unless he could see perfect demonstration, that 'tis 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 Unity of Government in God's Church, nothing but a perfect and rigorous demonstration, could be able to convince, the understanding that 'twas better to ●ct.  
20. The Protestants produce no such demonstration, that ●was better to act in this case. For, they never closed 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 Ecclesiastical affairs, or, lastly, that, though he were such, yet the Authority was to be abolished for the Abuses sake; Which were necessary to be done ere they could demonstrate it better to break Church Unity. Nor, indeed, does their manner of writing bear the slenderest resemblance, of rigorous demonstration: since demonstration, is not a connecting of Air and words, but of Notions and sense, and this from self evident Principles even to the very intended conclusion. Whereas their way of writing is only to find out the sense of words by a Dictionary kind of manner; which sort of Discourse, is the most fallible, most slight and most subject to Equivocation, that can be imagined. To omit that rigorous demonstration, is pretended by our party for our Rule of faith, immediate Tradition, which they renounced; and, consequently, for whatsoever was received upon it (as was the Pope's Authority) as yet unanswered by their side. Nay their own side sometimes acknowledge, our said Rule of faith infallible. See Schism Dispatched. p. 104. & p. 123.  
21. 'Tis the most absurd, and impious folly imaginable to bring for their excuse, that they were fully persuaded the thing was to be done or is to be 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 he was to do such a thing till he show whence he became thus persuaded; otherwise his persuasion, might be a fault itself, and the occasion of his other fault in thus acting. 'Tis not therefore his persuasion, but the Ground of his persuasion, which is to be alleged and looked into. Which, if it were reason, whence he became thus persuaded, and that he knew how he came to be persuaded (without knowing which 'twas irrational to be persuaded at all) than he 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 'twas better to be done, otherwise they can never justify 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 'twas better, to do that fact, 'tis from itself convinced, and concluded irrational, 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 judges, 'tis a plain self-Condemnation, and irrational. If they were ignorant, or in some degree ignorant and yet either thought themselves not ignorant, or in some degree less ignorant, than 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 'tis apparent there are no truly sufficient, convincing or demonstrative reasons to be 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 criminal as in the former cases, and indeed much more, leaving it manifest, that neither persuasion, nor their fact which was originized from it, sprung from reason in their understanding, but from Passion and Affection in their Wills.  
THEREFORE THE PROTESTANTS ARE GVILTY BOTH OF MATERIAL, AND FORMAL SCHISM; SINCE 'TIS EVIDENT THEY HAVE DONE BOTH A SCHISMATICAL FACT, AND OUT OF A SCHISMATICAL AFFECTION.  
FINIS.      

THE POSTSCRIPT.  
IF my Adversaries will undertake to reply in a rigorously demonstrative way, which, as it only is conclusive, so none but it can avail them to justify 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, he can be content to leave them to the Applause of weak and half-witted Readers, and to the Laughter and contempt of rational and intelligent persons.   

INDEX TO THE TREATISE Against Dr. Hammond.  

A,  
ABsurdtiies in Dr. H. p. 215 three till (this page the collector, 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 showing one express word in any one. p. 345, 346. etc. with others of an inferior strain. Absurdities about Saint John's Priority in place. p. 371, 372, 373. Another, p. 374. Many and most gross Absurdities to avoid the clearing his inexcusable Falsification of Scripture p. 376 377, etc. Absurd pretences, and his building on a ●silly, unauthentik and most unlikely Narration. p. 388, 389. Absurd nonsense in obliging us to confess what we hold as of Faith, instead of showing us he had expressed we held so, and not calumniated our tenet. p. 390, 391, 392. More new Absurdites. p. 307, 308. Absurdity in answering by a Parallel which in nothing resembled our objection. p. 410, 411. Absurd Nonsense. p. 418, 419, 420. A Cluster of Absurdities about his twelve Thrones. p. 421, 422. etc. 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 several 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. etc. 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 Schismatics. p. 315, 316. His other manifold abuses come under the Heads of Calumny, cavil, false-dealing, and others. Actual Power of the Pope in England at the time of the breach. p. 36. 37. The Antientnesse of that Actual 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 meddled 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.  
Cavil groundlessly made against a petty lapse, though rectified in the Errata, p. 172, 173. Other groundless and senseless Cavils, p. 186, 230, 276, 277, 278, 302, 366, 367, 368, 426, (thrice) 427. False Cavil that S. W. never considered his Allegations, when as he had answered them particularly one by one, p. 211. A Cavil 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 show one express word for Exclusive Jurisdictions in any of those Testimonies he produced to prove it. p. 343. This Challenge how rational and moderate in the Offerer, how necessary and advantageous 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 sense 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 shown 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 called, Clear Evidences, to be Proofs, p. 336, 337. Contradicting himself with one Testimony five times, p. 417, 418. Contradicting the scope of the present Controversy, 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 introduced, p: 168, 169, 170.   

F.  
Fact evinced 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, discovered, p. 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 266, 267, 268, 269. 270, 358, 359, 367, 415, 416. Falsifications of S. Ambrose reiterated, and shamelessly applied to his own advantage, whereas it is expressly 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, etc. 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 Counsels 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 Controversy, p. 36, to 55.   

I.  
IGnorance in Logic, p. 76, 135, 137, 138, 139, 157. 158. 281. (twice) 376, 384. (twice) 424. Ignorance in his Accidence, shown 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 Fullness 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. Church's 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 Infallibility, p. 98, 99 No Power to bind 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 wilfully every line of my Introduction, p. 55, 56, 57, 58. etc. to 69, his other Mistakes sprung from wilfulness 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 only 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 show 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 cavil 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 etc. 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 expressly 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, etc.  
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 usurped p, 40, 41, 42. Possession of Catholics justly pretendable to have some from Christ, and so may be itself a Title, but that of Protestants cannot 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 express words, the whole tenor of his Discourse, the main scope of his most substantial 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 called Evidences, metamorphosed now into Branches of Accordance, Agreeances and Fancies, and all denied 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 principal 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 denied p▪ 159▪ 160 161. 162, 163 From, Names and Titles denied, 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. John's being over the Jews only, p. 366, 367, His Testimony from Scripture for his Exclusive Provinces truly explicated, and that Explication made good. p. 224, 225, etc. His most serviceable Testimony from the Arch-heretick Pelagius, p. 239. This Testimony mainly relied on, p. 242. 306. 346. 348. Testimony from S. Hierom, clearing the point of Exclusive Jurisdiction. p. 251. to 255. S. Chrysostom's express Testimony against himself, whom he citys most for him in this point, p 279. 280. Three most manifest Testimonies from S. Chrysost. for S. Peter's Supremacy, p. 288. to 292. Testimony from S. Cyprian and S. Austinc, for S. Peter's Authority, p. 292. to 297. Testimony from our own Canon Law senselessly brought against us, p. 297. to 301. A Testimony expressly against himself 〈◊〉 every Tittle brought to make good all his former Testimonies, p. ●26. 327. Six Testimonies of 〈◊〉 shown invalid by Schism disarmed, 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 expressly against him, p. 416, A Testimony produced as for him, which contradicts him in five particulars, p. 418 419. His Testimony from Scripture for twelve Episcopal Chairs, p. 421. 423. The Testimony Tu es Petrus, etc. urged by us p. 434. 435. Testimony from Justinians Novels doubly and notoriously falsified, p. 468. 469.   

W.  
Weakness 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 quarrel 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, etc. In totally mistaking the common sense of a plain Epistle to the Reader, p. 29, 30. etc. 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 reckoned, is this. 

Absurdities, threescore and two.  
Abuses twenty nine:  
Blasphemies, seven.  
Groundless Cavils, fifteen.  
Calumnies, twelve.  
Contradictions, seventy six  
False-dealing, 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,  
Shuffle.  
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.  
Cavils groundlessly raised, p. 483, 484, 485, 499, 501, 502, 524, 541, 565, 572, 599, 632, 935, 952, 653. Cavils 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.  
Defendant, 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 half of our charge, p. 477, 478  
Omitting to speak one positive word to the matter of Fact, p. 481, 482. Omitting words most relied 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. Peter's 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 manifoldly weak, from p. 542, to p. 549.  
Unity of Faith broke 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. dispached. 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. lawful. 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 i'll phrased. p. 257. l. 13 hath no. p. 261. l● 20 same tune. p. 266. l. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 301. l. 7 prejudicial. p. 306. l. 34 possibly. p. 308.:. 13 from all other. ib. 33. hence all. p. 310. l. 34 commanded together together. p. 318. l. 20 take to be p. 322. l. 13 in soft-reasoned. 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 enclosure. 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, etc. 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 Successor 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, etc. p. 514. l. 11● flickering, p. 519. l. 24. by my first. p. 520. l. 27. of nonens. 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. confesses. p. 21. l. 7. 8. Pag. 578 l. 33. national 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. contests. 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. diametrical. p. 645. l. 27. or of the p. 651. l. 4. A patriarchal Aristocratical Authority. p. 666. l. 19 neither their.  
FINIS.