Sect. I.
The occasion of the Disarmers writing, and his writing in such a manner. Dr. Hammonds weaknes in imputing contumeliousnes.

WHat Mr. Hammond professed of himself, that his chief design is to enjoy calm and peacefull thoughts, and to retire from polemicall enga­gements, is no lesse the wish of his friendly Disarmor; who had permitted him to enjoy his Halcyon sollitari­nesse, and to [...]leep securely in a whole skin had not him­self ounded the Allarm and made the Onset; of which, though the latter were very feeble, yet the former being full of noise in the mouths of all the Docteurs friends, it awaken'd him from his quiet silence into a necessary resistance.

He saw the most in violable, the most long [...]settled, the most sacred, and most universally [...]acknowledged Go­vernment the sun ever beheld, despited and wronged: he saw, by consequence, the eternall and infaillible rule of faith, in which was fundamentally interessed the salvation of mankind, broken and disannull'd, by the rejecting that [Page 2] Government which it recommended to us, as the Safe­guard of our Faith: he saw his dearest Mother the holy Ca­tholick Church Christs sacred Spouse, by relation to wihch onely he could hope for any title to salvation, abused and vilify'd: he saw his dear Countrymen run distractedly in­to an hundred sorts of Sects, all springing originally from that grand one of the schismaticall Protestant Congrega­tion: he observed how the Protestant party, though of late not reprehended much by Catholick writers (hoping their own vexatious divisions would at length give them understanding) were yet so unseasonably clamorous, as then most to plead their innocence when their fault of Schim was most palpable, and God's severe correction of it most visible upon them: Lastly, he took particular no­tice how one Dr. Hammond, a private man, had bent his weak utmost to continue and propagate that Schism, so uniuersally destructive to Government, Faith, God's Church, his Countrey; and perceiving by the cry of [...]is followers that his Book was likely to contribute much to this great harm, he thought these motives sufficient pro­uocations to make the confutation of that Treatise the prentisage of his endeavours in Controversie.

Rationall therefore and convenient was the Disarmers determination to write, and to write against Dr. Ham­mond. The manner then of his writing comes next to be examined, which will not down with the Doctours sto­mach, (and indeed it is no wonder if those who are re­solved not to mend do not love to be reprehended;) whereupon he has by self imagin'd applications of so­me Texts, voted here poor S. W. whom he sayes ( pag. 2.) he has taken in the flagrant fact of abusing him, to be in reality no Christian, a detestable person, under the cen­sures of the Church, nay ipso jure, (saith he) excommu­nicate; in a speciall sort one of the [...], unritghteous, and without repentance uncapable of going to heaven; [Page 3] and lastly▪ to be none of those Saints who, clave non errante, (saith the Dr.) shall judge the world. A sad case that no punishment lesse then Hell must be poor S. W's doom, because he laid open the weaknesse of Dr. Hommonds defense of a pernicious cause, after the manner that such a a defence deserved And I wonder he had no more Chari­ty then not tho be afraid lest he should drive S. W. into de­spair of his salvation, by denouncing and preaching to him such horrid judgements for writing against the Saints, and using (as, pag. 3. Mr. Hammond sayes) that very dia­lect which the obstinate Iews used towards the true Prophets of God.

But first he does me right in acknowledging that it was not I who gave him his Bill of Fare, to which I may with truth adde, that I not so much as knew of it: Yet he thinks he has got a notable advantage against me, from my own confession, that my blows were rude, and mine Adver­sary civil where as, I used both those phrases as an obje­ction of the Readers, as is most palpable; and had I used them, the rudenesse of blows argues not that they were not just, since none doubts, but Malefactours are very ru­dely, yet most justly whipt; and the courteous epithet of civil, deny'd not but the oyl in his tongue was accompa­ny'd with venome in his heart, and so made it more ne­cessary to discover that, whose onely advantage it was, to lurk undiscoverable under the smooth outsde of a fair-languag'd courtesie. The twitchings by the beard (which he reiterates to make his Reader smile,) is indeed something too rude a carriage if understood in the downright sence as he seems to take it; but since I spoke-it onely in an Alle­gery, and in order to his wearing a vizard which I pluck'd off, let him but acknowledge that I found him attired in such a mask (to which the other words related) and I am contented to be thou [...]t so unreasonably uncivil as to pluck it off so rudely.

[Page 4] Next, with what Logick does he huddle together those testimonies out of Scripture for S. W's pasport to Hell, unlesse he could evidence that they were particularly ap­pliable to him? Are words, which in their own nature found even contumeliously, so perfectly damnable that no circumstance can render them inculpable; or at least venial, if not necessary, or convenient? for the Dr. main­tains the generall Thesis in such à manner, as if one taken in such a flagrant fact, is long ago condemned to hell and disinherited from his right to heaven. p. 2. and 3. What becomes then of good S. Iohn Baptist, who called the ill­prepared Iews a generation of vipers? what of S. Paul who ( Acts 13. 8.) called Elymas, son of the devil, full of all treaechery and deceit, enemy of all justice, &c. What of our Saviour, who called Herod, Fox, the prophaners of the Temple, Theeves, the Scribes and Pharisees Hy­pocrites? And, to come nearer our present circumstances, what will become of Blessed S. Polycarp, (disciple to S. Iohn the Evangelist, the tenderest recommender of Cha­rity to his disciples of all the Apostles) who yet meeting with an heretick, who began complementally to insinuate into acquaintance with nonn agnoscis nos? Do not you know us? rejected his courtesy with this rude language, Agnosco primogenitum Di boli, yes, I know thee to be the first begotten of the devil. What of S. Iude, who calls hereticks clouds without water, autumnal trees, twice dead, rooted out, waves of the raging sea foaming out their own confusion. Lastly, to come yet nearer home, what shall we think of Gods Church, whose custome it ever was to anathematis and curse all hereticks, and of S. Paul who bids anathema even to an Angel from hea­ven, if he should preach false doctrine? I ask now, are not all these expressions, revileing, contumelious, rude, and (which the Doctour most resents) beard-twitching lan­guage, if taken in themselves? Must then all this good [Page 5] company be deem'd detestable, unrighteous, excommuni­cate, and blindly pack'd all away to hell together, for re­vilers, contumelious, &c. because they gave such hard language? The texts alledged by Mr. H. are very gene­rall, laying about them blindly and indifferently at Friends and Foes; and he allowes them here no exception at all. Or, if he does, as I hope he wil rather then involve such persons in his uniuersall censure; then the reason why he exempts these must be, because the words, though taken in their own indifferency without any application, are most highly contumelious, yet, spoken to such persons as hereticks, men publickly noxious, the common good concernd' made the private person's repute not considera­ble: and so (the misdesert of the persons justifying the truth of the words) they sounded now a laudable and ne­cessary zeal, which in other circumstances had been contu­mely and inte [...]perate passion.

Whence followes, first, that I am not excommunicate▪ or in the state of damnation, for having used contumeli­ous words, since the use of them, if taken simply in it self, is not impious, as has beenshown: but for having used them against Dr. H. Vnhappy I who was not aware how sacred a person my adversary was, ere I undertook to deal with him! Next, it follows that, if Dr. H. evidence not his cause to be no heresy, and himself no maintainer of it, all those former harsh expressious used against here­ticks are his due, and without scruple of sin, might be gi­ven him by S. W. who had undertaken as a Catholick writer to lay open his faultinesse. Let any man but read the Doctours first chapter of Schism, and take notice what harsh-sounding characters the Fathers give to that vice; and then let him tell me what a publick propaga­tour of Schim may deserue. Wherefore, unlesse he makes his evidence good, S. W. may also justly retort upon him the charge of contumeliousnesse; since he has no where [Page 6] in his whole Book used towards him such rude expressi­ons, as the Dr. hath in his first chapter by his censorious self-explication of Scripture loaded upon him, of detesta­ble, impious, &c onely Mr. Hammond calumniates in a preaching manner, and out of Scripture, which makes the well-couch'd contumely lesse discernable. Thirdly, it were very easie for S. W. using the Doctours method, to gather out of Scripture all the vigorous words and seve­re execrations against the wicked; and then, by his own voluntary explication and application, clap them all upon the Dr.: as for example, that of Curse ye Meroz, &c. and then say that by Meroz is meant such as Mr. H. who writes against God's Church. This, I say, were as easie for the Disarmer: But he cannot but hate that in himself, which he nauseates at in another: He knows ve­ry wel, and hopes the world, now grown wiser, plainly discerns it almost as impossible certainly to demonstrate truth by clashing together meer wordish testimonies; as to strike fire by the weak collision of two pieces of Wax, which easily yield at every stroke: and therefore makes account it is his greatest misfortune to tamper with an Adversary who trades in wares of no higher value, then onely, Reusner like, in fragments pick'd out of severall Authours, and then stitch'd together by voluntary transi­tions into a book.

What is hitherto said is onely to show, that every using of language, even in its own nature contumelious, is fat from being a sin; and therefore that S. W. may yet (by God's grace) hope to escape hell fire▪ unlesse the Dr. can evidence that his cause is neither Heresie nor Schisme; since, if it be, it remain'd very lawful for him to treat the publike propagatour of it according to his desert, as has been shown. But S. W. disclaims, in behalf of his book, any such language towards Dr. H. A contumely (I con­ceive) notes some personall and morall fault in another: [Page 7] did I note any in him? Indeed, as a writer; he was mine and the Churches Adversary; and as such it is most irra­tionall I should spare him, when I saw my advantage. Do Duellers (if their quarrell be serious) use to spare their enemy, and not hurt him in that place where they see him unguarded? It were madnesse then to expect, that, where my adversary writ insincerely, I should not shew him insincere; where blasphemously, blasphemous; whe­re weakly, weak; where ridiculously, ridiculous, Vpon such advantage offer'd I ought to have had no courtesie for him; unlesse I would prevaricate from my task, and betray the cause I had undertaken to defend, by a com­plemental connivence. If then I might upon his desert gi­ve him those characters, I hope it is necessarily conse­quent that words must be allowed me to expresse them; nor ought the lawfull help of Rhetorick be interdicted me, to expresse them home. Now, if all art of Rhetorick gives it, that ridiculous things ought to be exprest ironi­cally, let Dr. H. blame the art so unfriendly to him, and his own weaknesse which intituled him to such expressi­ons; not S. W. who did but as art, nature, and reason required. If any yet object that I was still excessive in the manner of those expressions; I answer that I shall bewil­ling to confesse the fault, unlesse I manifested him equal­ly excessive in the manner of deserving them: otherwise, as long as the proportion holds, I shall in reason account my self blamelesse.

As a writer then against God's Church, D. H. ought in reason to expect no mercy at S. W's hands, but rigo­rous justice onely: nor is this by consequence contumeli­ousnesse, but the proper treaty which reason grants, reli­gion avoucheth, and the circumstances make necessary. Now that all the pretended revilings of S. W. are no o­ther the Dr. shall. inform the Reader, complaining here pag. 2. that the Publisher of the book hath solemny an­next [Page 8] a list of the contumelies, three and thirty picz'd out by specialty, &c. since then these, as he sayes, are the speci all or chief contumelies, not to trouble the Reader with the whole Roll, we will onely take notice of the first of them, which is this; How the Dr. of. Divinity has forgot his accidence. This is the first of those special contume­lies, which Dr. H. here compares to Goliah's cursing of David; to Rabshakeh's reproches; to the king of Mo­ab's language against Israel. This is that in the flagiant fact of which (as he expresses it) being taken, the Apostle hath therefore long ago pronounced sentence against me, that no Christian must eat with me, hence it is that I have onely the name, not the reality of a Christian, am a detesta­ble person, ipso jure excommunicated in a special manner one of the [...] (as he pedantizes it) so as unreformed (that is, without repentance) I shall not inherit the kingdome of heaven, and do but flatter and deceive my self if I hope I may; and lastly, am none of those Saints who (clave non errante) shall judge the word. Thus are poor Catho­licks poasted to hell by couples (for I suppose the Ro­mish Factour must bear me company) without bale or mainprise, for manifesting that Dr. H. had forgot his Ac­cidence. You wits of the Vniuersities beware and take example by the fatall Catastrophe of S. W. when you write or dispute do not accuse your Adversary of incon­sequence in his argument, mistakes in criticizing, sol [...]e­cismes, or the like; you see upon how ticklish a point your salvation stands; if you do, the Apostle hath pronoun­ced long ago that no man may eat with you, hence you are specially contumelious, excommunicated, no Christi­ans, detestable, in speciall sort unrighteous, and do but flatter your selves, if you hope to go to heaven without true and hearty repentance, as Dr. H. hath evidently pro­v [...]d out of Scripture.

The rest of those special contumelies (as he calls them) [Page 9] are deductions from his own erroneous reasoning, or in­terpreting Scripture, from his self contradictions, his mi­stakes, &c. and therefore being onely aimed at his Book? orat Himself as the Writer of it, were necessary to be taken notice of by his Disarmer; and consequently not falling under the notion of contumelies, nor deserving so many censures in Greek. If Mr. H. yet kindly com­plain, that my words were too harsh; my answer is, the very names we give to great faults are harsh words, nor can they possibly be other wise; so as he must either suppose me so supine as not to take notice of his faulti­nesse, or else I must suppose him more innocent, (that is, deny mine own eyes:) and then, winking at his grosse and pernicious errours, substitute courtesy to zeal, and instead of confuting, fall to complement. Now how can any man in reason imagine I should not mention his grea­test faults, that is, not use harsh words? For either Dr. H. knew of them, or not: if not, it was his interest and my charity to let him know them; which, I think, can­not be done without naming them: If he knew of them, and yet writ them, it was a more necessary charity, and more concerning the publick, and dearest interest of mens salvations (waving all private respect to the person) to let all men know his false dealing, that they might bewa­re of him, as of a wolf in sheeps clothing. Let himself chu­se which side he pleases, I shall hold my self sufficiently cleared by either. Nay, rather I have reason to make a counter-complaint of the Dr. for, I no where in my whole Book, branded him with the appelation of a de­testable person, which this pattern of piety gives me: though my pretence might avouch-it, being to defend the rights of the Church I live in: whereas his intemperance proceeds from a vindication of his private selfe from the contumelies (forsooth) he hath received; and to aggra­vate his fault the more, he cannot be content to use his [Page 10] own words to expresse his gravity affecting passion; but, to make his railing more authoritative (as one said of a precise puritanical Dame, that shee never cudgeld her Mayd but in Scripture-phrase) so St. Paul must needs prophecie long ago of my Excommunication, be revived to pronounce it in Dr. H's name, and for solemnity sake, in Greek too: Yet after the Dr. hath been so hihg in the Pulpit against contumelies, he is become himself so mean an Auditor, as to accuse me flatly of falsifications, (with what reason shall be seen hereafter) calumnies certainly, if not avouch'd; yet all sounds zeal in him, which in ano­ther would be plain contumelie: Should we desire St. Paul now to Excommunicate Dr. H. hee would presently silence-us, by assuring'us, that St. Paul never meant harm to him, but to S. W. onely, so secure a thing it is to be a dexterous Scripturist.

Sect. 2.
That the certainty of Faith (and that onely) justly grounds zeal; and obliges the Propugner of that Faith to an impartial plainnesse with its Adversary, as taken-un­der that notion,

THese ordinary Considerations, and obvious to com­mon sence, I have offer'd to the Reader, to let him see this manner of Writing in confuting such Authors, is very rational, if the cause deserves any zeal, and the truth of the thing makes good what is said. One rea­son more I shall adde, which I recommend to the atten­tive consideration of the Reader, it being indeed the fun­damental ground why such a treaty should be necessary in controversies about Faith, against the deemed adver­saries thereof. And this is no other than the certainty of Faith it self. But lest the Dr. should mistake me (as his [Page 11] custome is) to beg the question, by supposing our Faith certain, I professe my selfe onely to mean at present a deemed, or beleeved certainty of Faith in him who is to maintain it: Now whoever holds his Faith and its ground certain (as Catholiks do) is obliged, eo ipso, to hold for certain likewise, that the Government recommended to him by the same Rule of Faith is to be submitted to, and by consequence, that the rejecting it is Schism; whence follows, that he must hold also for certain, that the Propa­gatour of that Tenet is a Ringleader of Schismaticks, pub­lickly pernicious, and one who by his poisonous Writings infects the souls of men with as hainous a vice as ever en­tituled any to damnation. Neither can he hold him other­wise, unlesse he will hold the ground of his own Faith un­certain, and call into question the substance of all his hope, that he may instead thereof entertain charitable thoughts of the impugner of it.

Now then let us consider what carriage is due towards a private person, held for certain to be one who endeavours to draw souls to hell by his Writings and Authority, from him who holds him so, nor can hold him otherwise, unlesse he will hold the grounds of his own Faith doubtful; ought not this Catholike Writer, if he has any zeal for his Faith, or care of his Conscience (which obliges him in charity to prevent so great mischief) to use the means and waies which wit and art can invent, to confute and discredit that mans harmful sophistry, and disparage his authority, as fat as truth can justifie his words? ought hee not to trample down all tendernesse which his good nature would sug­gest, neglect all considerations of respect, all condescen­sions of civility, to lay him open plainly, and palpably to be what hee is, that is, ridiculous, nonsensical, weak, blasphemous, or whatever other Epithet the defence of so bad a cause makes so bad a writer deserve: why should he make scruple (going upon those grounds that his Faith [Page 12] is most certain, and the former sequel no lesse) to give him the same language, if he be found to deserve it, as St. Iude gave the Adversaries of Faith in his daies, as the Fa­thers gave Porphyrius afterwards; nay more, if he sees he can make him justly ridiculous, why should he not expresse himself ironically too in order to his nonsence, as well as Elias might scoffe at the Priests of Baal? In a word, whatever can conduce to the justly disgracing him, as the Defender of a certainly deemed-pernicious cause, might lawfully, nay in Charity ought have been used to undeceive his adherentes, and preserve others from a cer­tainly-beleeved danger, and that the greatest of dangers, eternal damnation.

Hence sollows, that though S, W. may perhaps be bla­med for holding his Faith certain, yet he is inculpable for proceeding consequently to the former Tenet, that is in treating Dr. H. as a pernicious destroyer of soules, since (as hath been proved) he cannot think him otherwise, un­lesse hee either doubt of his own Faith, or renounce the light of his Reason, which taught him to deduce thence by evident consequence that such he was, and as such to be treated. He who holds ill principles, is blameable indeed in that regard, but yet he is worthy of praise and commen­dations for proceding consequently upon them, since to deduce consequences aright, is very laudable.

As for the culpablenesse which may accrue by hold­ing his Faith certain, to clear himseif to rational persons (for wordish and merely testimony-men are not capable of reason) he feares not to professe, that he makes ac­count he hath as perfect evidence, or more than he hath for any thing in nature, that Truths of no lesse concernment then Eternity, written in the hearts of so many as may in a just estimate make up the account of mankind, in such a powerful manner, and with such incompatable motives as the Apostles writ them being so conformable to nature, [Page 13] not meerly speculative, but each of them visibile, and dai­ly practical, could never dye or decay out of the hearts of Christians, in any age. Nor hath he lesse evidence, that consequently (Scripture & its interpretation being subject to misprision, as far as they depend not upon this, and are regula [...]ed by it) Vniversal Tradition is the onely certain and absolute rule of Faith; whence follows, that both they who build upon any other ground, have onely opini­on to found their faith, for those points which they re­ceive nor from tradition; as also, that that Church who relies upon universal Tradition for each point of Faith, erres in none, not can erre so long as the sticks close to so safe a Principle. Now then, finding no Church doe this but the Roman-Catholike (for neither Greeks, nor Pro­testants, nor any else pretended to have received ever from their immediate Fore fathers those points of Faith in which they differ from her) doubt not to account Her that one­ly Church which hath the true motive, ground, and rule of Faith (since probability cannot be that Rule) and con­sequently which hath true Faith, and is a true Church: Hence I am obliged to esteem all other Congregations which have broken from that onely-certain Rule, or her Government recommended by the same Rule, Schisma­tical and Heretical; hence I conclude her Infallible, be­cause I make account I can demonstrate, that the prin­ciple upon which onely she relies is impossible to fail, Hence, Iastly, that I may come home to my intent, I ac­count my faith certain, and the propagator of the contra­ry certainly pernicious to mens souls; and therfore that it was both his desert and my obligation, not to let slip any possible advantage, which might with Truth damnify his cause, and him as-the maintainer of it.

Now, that we may turn over the leaf, as certainty that faith is true is a sufficient ground to beget a just zeal in its propugners against its adversaries, so a profest fallibi­tily [Page 14] and uncertainty is uterly insufficient for that end, and unable to interest conscience in its defence. For how should conscience be inreressed to defend positi­ons held upon no better ground, with any eagernes­se, unlesse reason be interessed first? and how can reason be obliged to the serious, and vigorous patronage of what it felf knows certainly that it knows not whether it be true or no? See but how the working of Nature in all men gives testimony to this Truth! If we hear one obstinately affirm and stand to a thing which we know certainly is otherwise, though the matter it self be but of triviall concernment, even Nature seems to stirre us up in behalf of Truth to a just resentment, and hardly can we refrain from giving a sharp repre­hension, if the person be underus, or some expression of-dislike, if this peremptory wronger of truth exceed our jurisdiction. So on the other side if we be uncertain whether the thing be so or no, we find, it quite abates that keennesse of opposition, neither will any one un­lesse very peevish and weak, engage passion to quarrel about a conjecture, or if it so happen sometimes, as when probablists dispute vehemently, yet their heat springs not from the naturall love of truth inbred in the­ir souls, but because their honour, interest, or other conveniency is concerned in the goodsuccesse of the dis­putation.

Hence it follows, that as Catholikes go not consequently to their grounds, unlesse they defend with an eagernesse and zeal proportionable to the concernment of the thing, their Faith, which they hold most certain and infallible; so Protestants who confesse their Faith fallible, that is, such as may possibly by otherwise for any thing they know, are obliged by their very grounds not to take it much ill at any that impugne it, nor expresse any great zeal in behalf of it; or if they do, then, their grounds not [Page 15] requiring it, all their heat and earnestnesse must manifest­ly arise from some passion or interest. They ought there­fore to defend their problematicall Faith, as men defend paradoxes, calmly, civilly, and moderately; and make conscience of being discourteous to their opposer, since for any thing they kno [...] he may possibly be in the right. In a word, their whole way of controversy, ought in reason to be managed as an exercise of wit; since it consists on­ly in this, who can most dexterously and artificially criti­cize upon words, and be most quick and ready to pro­duce out of his storehouse either topicall reasons, or testi­monies (gleaned from all places and Authours) as shall seem most pat for the present occasion. And this is the reason why they desire no more, but that Catholike wri­ters should treat them with a luke-warm courtesy, and by a respectfull behaviour towards them, as leanerd men, see, mingly leave them some apparence that their Faith is pro­bable, and then they think themselves safe, and are very well appayed, whereas it belongs to a Catholike Au­thour, who holds his Faith certain to manifest the contra­ry to be perfectly absurd, and nonsence; and since the knowledge of this must, in his grounds, be held so neces­sary for the salvation of mankind, he ought in plain terms let men know it is such, and give it home the Character it deserves; otherwise by his timorousnesse he prevaricates from his grounds, & by his fearfull mincing his expressions when Truth will-bear him out in them, and the weight of the cause exacts them, he breeds a just apprehension in his readers that the contrary (else why should he proceed so reservedly) may have some degree of probability, which perhaps is enough for his Adversary, but assuredly be­trayes his own cause.

I know my adversary will think he hath gained much by my forwardnesse in this last paragraph, and others also may perhaps judge that I have put my self upon [Page 16] the geatest disadvantage imaginable by professing vo­luntarily that it is my obligation to show his writings non­sence or impossible to be true; whereas a good prohabi­ty that they are true wil serve his turn▪ but, both the necessity of my Cause obliges me to it, which must leave them voyd of all probability, whom a probability will content and also the evident Truth of it emboldens m [...]e to affirm this, and not to think that in so affirming I have said too much, or been too liberall to my Adversa­ry. Wherefore as if I were to dispute upon the ground of my Faith (which yet is not the proper task for our party who stand upon possession) I doubt not with Gods help to leave no room for a probability to the contrary, in the judgement of a prudent and disinte­ressed person; so I shall not fear to affirm that all the testimonies in Dr. Hammonds book, though they we­re twenty times more, and twenty times seemingly mo­re expresse, bear not the weight of a probability, if cōpared to that world of witnesses in te Catholike Church they left, all attesting that the very points which the re­formers relinquisht had been delivered by their Forefa­thers, as delivered to them by theirs &c. And this so expressly, amply, and clearly, as leaves no place for cri­ticisms, severall explications, with all the train of other circumstances, which mere words seldome or never want, rendering them obnoxious to a thousand ambi­guities: joyn then, I say, that vast, and clear testimony to this argument, drawn from reason, that, as it is impos­sibile they who lived ten years before H. the eight should so conspire to deceive those who lived in his dayes, in things visibile and practicall (such are the points of our Faith) as to say they received them from their Fore­fathers as received from theirs, and yet no most palpa­ble evidence remain of this most palpable and evidently, prevayling even to gull the whole world to their fa­ces [Page 17] in a businesse importing their eternall blisse; so like­wise that the same impossibility holds in each ten years ascending upwards till the Apostles time, and by conse­quence, that the Faith delivered of late was the Faith deli­vered then. Ioyn I say these two together, and I doubt not to affirm that it is most perfect non-sence, to think all the testimonies in Dr. Hs. book (subject to a thousand Grammatical, Philological, Sophisticall, Historical and Logical difficulties) can bear so much as a show of pro­bability, if compared to that clear evidence of reason, and that ample one of universall testification which shines in the other. However it may happen, that some one or more testimonies of his may make the contrary seem probable to such as either never heard of, or nor well pe­netrated, or do not consider the grounds of Vniversall Tradition; as a straw may incline a ballance, if nothing be put in the counterpoise.

Neither let my Adversary object, I intend to evade answering his Testimonies by this discourse: they shall have from me the return due from an Answerer; that is, to show them unable to conclude against this vast Autho­rity of Vniversall Tradition; for he may know we hold our Faith and Government upon no other tenour. So as still the mea sure of their force must be according to the degree in which they invalidate this tenour of ours built upon both a long possession, and such an universall▪ and clear testification. Onely I desire the Reader to take no­tice hence, what a pittifull task it is to stand answering a wordish book, which can bear no weight with any pru­dent man who considers the incomparable force of Vni­versall Tradition, our onely tenour: but I am necessita­ted to it by the weaknesse of many, whose wit never carryed them farther than to hear a sermon, or to read a testimony; and therefore they never reflected what small merit of assent can be pretended to by words of men dead [Page 18] long ago, left to be tost by our various expositions and criticisms, and liable to a thousand evasions, against the clear sense written in the hearts of mankind with most powerfull motives, and to be propagated truly to their posterity under penalty of eternall damnation to them and theirs. Few there are I say who have refined their understanding to this degree of discerningness though I perceive, to my great comfort, that the best sort of witts begin to own their reason, and bring it home to it self, ra­ther than suffer it to wander in a pathlesse wildernesse of words, and think it an endeavour more worthy a ratio­nall soul to weave well compacted Treatises by evident connexion of terms, than fruitlesly to stand picking thrums-ends out of overworn garments; & when they have done, scarce know what colour they are of, or how to knit them handsomely together without the motley of non-sence.

Thus much to give account of my obligation not to favour Mr. H. while he impugnes that Faith which I esteem most certain, and most concerning. Now, for his person, as it comes to me under any other notion, than of a writer against God's Church, I profess with all sincerity to honour and love it in the measure which rea­son requires. As a member of the civil commonwealth I live in, I bear him a civil respect; I hear he is much a Gentleman and very courteous: in return to which, if it be my good fortune to meet him, I shall be as ready to serve him in what may not concern my cause, and do him as much civility, as I would to most Gentlemen in England. According to the degree of scholarship I find in him, I shall candidly allow him a proportionable ho­nour, and shall not envy it him, though mine Adversary, even in his absence, amongst mine own Friends. I value-him for his skill in Greek, a language I much love my self, and think it a great ornament to a scholar, if he [Page 19] know how to use it seasonably, and not wantonly shew it upon all, or rather no occasion; in which Mr. H. hath very mvch diminish't himself, giving his Readers a fair ti­tle to suspect him either of too much vanity in that, or emptiness in other knowledges. I applaud his unwearied industry, half of which employed in a rationall way by some strong brain, might be the happy Mother of many rare productions. His looking into such variety of Au­thours deserves also it's commendation; since testimo­nies have their degree of probation allowed them by their Governesse Reason; that is, according to the degree of knowledge (or Authority subsequent to it) found in the Testifier, and the clearnesse from ambiguity found in the words alledged: nay rather I should esteem him more for this than all the rest, were this way of testimonies in it self much estimable, since his chief and almost onely ta­lent lies in this; which furnishes him with sufficient store of such declamatory proofs, and enables him to bring some kind of testimony against any thing that can be op­posed, as the nature of such sleight quotation-argumenrs uses to be; for indeed what so absurd, but a testimony may be produc't, even from the best Authours, seemin­ly favouring it, as we experience daily in Scripture? Last­ly and more especially, I acknowledge I am much his for the sakes of some Friends common to him and me; which (as no man with more veneration honours that s [...]cred re­lation of minds, than my self) doth in a manner mediate­ly ally me to him, and makes me desirous to flatter my self, that the agreeing in a third, should make us not disa­gree amongst our selves. All these motives give him no mean place in my thoughts, and esteem: yet all these temporall considerations vanish, and he straight becomes again indifferent to me, when a quarrell about Eternity of mankind's blisse or misery is to be controverted be­twen us; and my deemed certainty of my Cause, which [Page 20] concludes him by consequence certainly pernicious, ob­liges me in Conscience to confute, nay even disgrace him, as far as he shall be found the promoter of a pestilent and soul-ruining Tenet. Although I must confesse withall, I am sorty, that by is own fault he occasion'd this con­scientious engagement in me; for had there been no infe­ction spread, there had needed no Antidote.

What I have said here was to satisfy some whom I found much mistaken in the manner how Controversies ought to be treated by a Catholick; not considering that Courtesy is a vertue onely in fit circumstances, other­wise but an impertinent flattery or affectation, and in a serious controversy about faith, whose both Concernment and Certainty justify zeal, and make it necessary, as im­proper, as for souldiers who are to try the field about their Kings and Countreys interests, to hold their sword in one-hand, and hat in the other; complement, and kisse their hands to one another, instead of striking, or by any unnaturall mixture of both make a gallant show of a mock fight, preferring the care of court esy before the losse of their Cause. For the satisfaction of these I have Apologiz'd thus far, not in relation to Mr. H. The pro­per way to answer his weak proofs out of Scripture here, were to gather by the help of an honest Concordance all the harsh words in the Scriptures spoken by our Saviour or his Saints, and apply them voluntarily against him, as he has done against me; at which if he repine, then to ask, why my interpretation should not be as valid as his. And with good-reason too, should I daing him onely a reply in this method, for why should not an answer of a­ny thing serve to a quodlibeticall objection?

Sect. 3.
How unfortunate and weak Dr. H. is, in quoting S. Hiero­me against the Disarmer for writing plainly His crafty and discourteous Calumny.

AFter the testimonies from Scripture blindly levell'd at S. W. followes in the sixt Paragraph, that it was a deviation from art to treat him thus unkindly (to which I have answered above) and that S. Hierome notes it as a great errour in Helvidius, that he took railing for elo­quence. Wherefore since Mr. H. chuses S. Hierome for his Patron against S. W. in this point of the manner of writing controversy, let us stand to his ward and exam­ple: and see how he treated Vigilantius, Dr. Hs. and the Protestants Forefather in the point of denying venera­tion to Holy Reliques; and wether he stood upon cour­tesy, when he made account he had a just occasion to shew his zeal. In his Epistle to Riparius, the first he writ against Vigilantius, he hath these words: O praeciden­dam ling [...]am, &c. O tongue worthy to be cut out by Phy­sicians, or rather, oh frantick head to be cured by them, &c. Ego vidi hoc aliquando portentum; I once saw this prodigious monster. Tacita me forsan cogitatione repre hendas, &c. Perhaps thou mayest reprehend me in thy si­lent thought, why I inveigh against one absent: I confes­to thee my passion, I cannot hear so great sacriledge with patience. For I have read of the lance of Phinees, the austere rigour of Elias, the zeal of Simon of Cananee, the severity of Peter killing Ananias and Sapphira, the con­stancy of Paul, who condemned to eternall blindnesse Ely­mas the Sorcerer, resisting the wayes of our Lord. Piety in Gods behalf is not cruelty. Nor by consequence is zeale in behalf of Faith railing; if that Faith be held to have [Page 22] certain grounds; which onely can justify zeal, and make it discreet. But to proceed.

His second Epistle against Vigilantius begins thus. ‘ Multa in orbe monstra &c Many monsters have been begotten in the world: we read in Esaias of Centaurs and Sirens, Screech-owls and Onocrotals: Iob describes Leviathan and Behemoth in mysticall language: the fables of the Poets tell of Cerberus, and the Stym­phals, and the Erymanthian Boar, of the Nemean Li­on, of Chimera, ad many-headed Hydra: Virgil de­scribes Cacus; Spain hath brought to light three-shap't Geryon; France onely had no Monsters. Suddenly there arose Vigilantius, or more truly Dormitantius, who with an unclean spirit fights against the spirit of Christ, and denies that the sepulchres of the martyrs are to be venerated. Insanum caput! mad or frantick fel­low! Sanctas reliquias Andreae, Lucae & Timothei, apud quas Daemones rugiunt, & inhabitatores Vigilantij il­lorum se sentire praesentiam confitentur, The holy re­liques of Andrew, Luke and Timothy, at which the Devils roare, and the possessours of Vigilantius con­fesse that they feel their presence. Tu vigilans dor­mis, & dormiens scribis: Thou sleepest waking, and writest sleeping. De barathro pectoris tui coenosam spur­citiam evomens; vomiting dirty filth from the hell of thy breast. Lingua viperea! Viperine tongue! Spiri­tus isle immundus, qui haec te cogit scr [...]bere, saepe hoc vilissimo tortus est pulvere, immo hodieque torquetur; & qui iu te plagas dissimula [...], in aliis confitetur: That unclean spirit which compells thee to write these things, has oftentimes been tortured with this contemptible dust ( meaning the Holy Reliques, which Vigilantius styled thus) yea and is now adayes still tortur'd; and he who in thee dissembles his wounds, confesses them in others.’

[Page 23] But let us come to the Treatise our Adversary cites, and see how roughly S. Hierome handles Helvidius; whom Dr. H. would have him accuse in the same trea­tise of the self-same fault. ‘ Sed [...]ne te quasi lubricus an­guis evolvas, testimoniorum stringendus es vinculis, ne quer [...]lus sibiles; but lest, like a stippery snake, thou disentangle thy self, thou must be bound with the cords of testimonies, that thou mayest not querulously hiss: Imperitissime hominum! siliest of men! Nobilis es factus in scelere, Thou art ennobled & made famous by thy wickednesse. Quamvis sis hebes, dicere non a [...] ­debis; although thou beest dull or blockish, yet thou darest not affirm it. Risimus in te proverbinm, Camelum vidimus saltantem: We have laught at the old proverb in thee, We have seen a dancing Camel▪ &c.’ Where we see.

First, that if S. Hierome's verdict exprest in his own manifold example be allowable, whom Dr. H hath chosen for Vmpire in his matter, tis very lawfull and fitting to give the Adversaries of Faith their full desert in controversies concerning Faith, and not to spare them as long as the truth of their faultinesse can justify the rigo­rous expressions. Neither let Dr. H. objet that I beg the question, in supposing him an Adversary of the true faith: for to put the matter indifferently, and so as may please even the Protestants them selves, either Dr. H's cause is false, and then '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 wilfull falsifications, and so many frauds and weaknesses, as he hath been discovered. Whence it appears that the indiffe­rent Reader is not to consider at all, whether the expres­sions sound harshly or no, but whether they be true or no; for if they be, then that person will be found in rea­son [Page 24] to deserve reprehension, be the cause he defends true or false, if he defend it either senselesly or insincere­ly.

Secondly, these harsh expressions of S. Hieromes being due to Dr. H's forefather Vigilantius, for denying vene­ration to holy Reliques, are due likewise upon that onely score to Dr. H. and the Protestant writers, who deny the same Point: what then may we imagine the Protestants deserve for filling up the measure of their forefathers sinnes, by denying the onely certain Rule of Faith, Vni­versall Tradition, the former governmēt of God's Church, almost all the Sacraments, and many other most impor­tant points besides, and of much greater concernment than is this of venerating holy Reliques?

Thirdly, the Reader shall find no where in Schism Disarm'd such harsh language given to Dr. H. or which (if taken in it's own nature (sounds so contumeliously as this of S. Hieromes against Vigilantius is; frantick fellow, monster, prodigious monster▪ possest with the Devill, possest with an unclean Spirit, snake, famous for wicked­nesse, blockhead, &c. My harshest words in comparison of these are moderate and ciuil▪ mine are smiling Ironies, his are stern and bitter Sarcasmes, and if I whipt Dr. H. gently with rods, S. Hierome wihpt his forefather Vigi­lantius with Scorpions. Whence followes that I am to be thank't by Dr. H. for my moderation, not excommu­nicated for my excesse in reprehending him, since all those more severe expressions far out-vying mine, were his due as he is in the same fault with Vigilantius, besides what accrues to him out of later titles; and this by the judge­ment of S. Hierome, the very Authour he quotes for him­self in this point.

Fourthly, what a miserable weaknesse is it to quote this Father against me for using harsh language, who himself uses far harsher? which evidences that if this Fa­thers [Page 25] authority and example be of weight in this point, as Dr. H. grants by bringing him against me for that pur­pose, then the roughnesse of the language is not railing or reprehensible, if taken alone or abstracted from the cause (since Dr. H. will not say that this holy Father thought that manner of language railing or reprehensible in him­self) which showes that Dr. H's first Chapter, fight­ing against the words as abstracted from the cause, as much accuses S. Hierome as me; nay much more, as his words exprest more fully his justly-caused zeal, than my more moderate pen did.

Fifthly, abstracting from the cause, and impugning the manner of expression onely, as Dr. H. does, who sees not that the Heretick Vigilantius might with the same reason as he, have entitled the first Chapter of his Reply to S. Hierome in the like manner as he did, to wit thus, Of Hieroms style and contumelies: ‘The Scriptures, sen­tence on [...]; the Character belonging thereto?’ Then in the Chapter it self have call'd S Hierome's plain discovery of his faults, scoffes and contumelies, have told him that he had just title to the scorners chair, that his writing against him, was like ‘Goliahs cursing of Da­vid, Rabshakels reproaches against Israel, that the A­postle had long ago pronounced sentence against him, that none should eat with him, that he was in reality no Christian, a detestable person, faln under the censures of the Church, ipso jure excommunicate, in a speciall sort one of the [...], unrighteous, that he shall not inherit the Kingdome of Heaven, that this was the very Dia­lect which the Iewes used toward the true Prophets of God, that it is against the practice of S. Michael and a­gainst the spirit of weeknesse, peace and long-suffer­ing, &c.’ As if every heretick, nay every malefactour in the world, could not say the same to their just reprehen­ders and punishers: or as if peace and long-suffering were [Page 26] to be used at all times, even when we see we suffer divine Truth to be injurd, and souls run headlong and blind to Hell after such blind guides. Every one, Mr. H. can preach patience, peace and long suffering, quote scri­pture, intermix Greek words pedantically; but none can speak sense but they who have truth on their side. It must be judged then by the strength of the reasons you bring to clear your selves from schism, whether you deserved those reprehensions from your Adversary or no, and not from what your quodlibeticall vein can preach to us. And till you bring evident ones, I shall ever think that S. Hierome (your own Authours here) preacht as good doctrine as you in a place lately cited, when he told us with many instances that non est crudelitas pro Deo pie­tas.

Sixthly, what is it to me that S. Hierome noted it as an errour in Helvidius, that he took railing for eloquence, unlesse he can prove that I took it so too? He knowes I pretend that justice, truth, and the necessity of my cause, warranted, nay obliged me to be so plain with him. I pretend no Eloquence in an ordinary controversy; nei­ther did I think that confuting Dr. H. would be such a rare businesse, that it would be worth the pains of a rhe­toricall filing.

Lastly, to shew more and more the weaknesse of this Dr. S. Hieromes words of Helvidius are these; loqua­citatem facundiam existimat, he thinks babling to be elo­quence. But the good Dr. whom any semblance of a te­stimony contents, construes loquacitas (wordishness) to be railing; as if empty pulpit-beatres, who talk two hours without a word of solidnesse, were therefore all railers. I doubt that ere we come to an end of this Trea­tise, Loquacity, that is, voluntary talking wordishly with­out a syllable of sense, will be so perfectly shown to be D. H's proper and peculiar fault, that his own words [Page 27] will evince it without the help of Saint Hierome.

And thus hath Dr. H. sped in quoting this holy, lear­ned, and truly zealous Father for the Patron of his affe­cted courte [...]y and civility; and a pattren for S. W. to fol­low in writing Controversies about Faith.

I once hoped Mr. H. and I should have parted very good Friends from this first Section, notwithstanding the contumelies which, contrary to his own grounds, he hath heaped upon me in it. But he hath so purposely counterfeited a mistake, that he might by that means fix a [...]ly c [...]umny upon a worthy person, that Charity and pitty must both be summon'd up to pardon him in it▪ I had upon occasion of the Evidence of our Churches In­fallibility in my Schim Disaerm'd pag. 20. told him, he might to his amazement see it in that incomparable Treatise of Rushworth's Dialogues, vindicated from all possible confute by that excellent Apology for it, writ by the learned pen of Mr Thomas White. What does Mr. H? he tells us that S. W. sayes, his arrowes are beyond all possible confute; meaning that S. W. the Au­thour of Schism Disarm'd, was the same with the Au­thour of the Apology for Tradition) though I am certain­ly inform'd that he knows S. W. to be another person) and reports again afterwards the same phrase to the same purpose. Now by this one project he gaines two ad­vantages: First he honours himself with making the world believe he had so worthy an Adversary as the Au­thour of that Apology: next, when he has done this, he dishonours his pretended Adversary, as the vainest per­son in the world, by intimating that himself in Schism Disa [...]m'd gave himself such an high character. Whereas first, I assure Dr. H. it is in vain to hope for such an ho­nour as is an Answer from that miracle of with and lear­ning▪ it is worthy him to write grounds, not to stand replying upon meer words; to answer such weak skir­mishers [Page 28] is a task more proper for one of the meanest and youngest of his scholars, a very slender participation of his solid knowledge renders one able to encounter with the Apuleian bladders of aiery testimonies, the victory over which can onely entitle one to Domitian's triumph, and need more the Flyflap of a Dictionary, or turning o­ver leaves to combat them, then the acuter and stronger sword of reason. As for the second, which is the sly ca­lumny of that worthy person's feigned self-praise, built onely on Mr. H's wilfull mistake, I fear the intimater of it will lose much credit by so ignoble a detraction of such a person; since his profoundest humility, of equall depth with his knowledge, secures him as much from desiring praise, as his known worth from needing it; every one freely yielding him those excellent commendations, which his Detractours will needs have him, for want of good neighbours, give himself.

He tells us in the close, that Divines are allowed to have skill in Symptomes. What Symptomes are these, and of what? that the profusest la [...]ghter is the worst in­dication of the affections of the spleen, quoting Irenaeus & Galen. I ask, suppose Irenaeus had also said that a grave­ly-affected melancholy, extraordinarily representing san­ctity and piety, and a professing an earnest desire to speak the full truth of God (Answer p. 18.) and yet in the mean time falsifying most palpably, purposely, and in­excusably, is the worst indication of a pharisaicall hy­pocrisie; were not this more competible to Mr. H. then the other is to me? I hope then he is answered, at least in as good a manner as such toyes deserve. And ere I come to finish this Treatise, I flatter my self, that even Dr. H's own Friend [...] will acknowledge that such is his carriage, and manner of writing, unlesse a strong prepos­session of partiality have blinded them, and shut the eyes both of their mind and body; since to make good this [Page 29] my charge against him, little more then the common use of the latter is exacted of the Reader.

Sect. 4.
Dr. H's methodicall Charity, represented in his totally mistaking the common sense of a plain Epistle to the Rea­der: with a second sly Calumny of the same strain, and other weaknesses.

HIs railing against me in the first section, which he calls his ( Answ. p. 5.) obligation of Charity, brings him methodically (for all is Charity and method in him) to andeavour my conviction, by examining the ac­count I gave of the rudenesse of my blowes; which though sufficiently cleared already, yet I think my self obliged to my cause, to take notice of this methodicall charity & convincing reason that the Reader may see what weak Patrons Schism hath; and that if Mr. H. be most grie­vously mistaken in a plain Epistle to the Reader, there is little hopes of his hitting right in higher matters after­wards, and so S. W, must utterly despair of ever being con­vinced by his methodicall Charity.

In my Epistle to the Reader, to render him account why the civility of mine adversary should not hinder me from giving him his own, if the care of an eternall good injured by him, interessed my zeal to lay him open, I proposed these two parallell questions. How would you take it if one should spit in your face, and justify the af­front because his breath is sweet? or what would you say to him that ruines your estate by Periury, and defends him­self, that he held up his hands and eyes to heaven, and swore demurely? Whatever answer you give, I am confi­dent it will perfectly clear my behaviour towards the Dr. with whom I should have very little contention, were the [Page 30] difference between us in any thing of lesse concernment than Eternity Where any man, that is not more then half-asseep, may see the meaning is plainly this; that as the alledging that the breath is sweet justifies not the af­front of spitting in ones face, nor the pretence of swearing demurely, the wrong of ruining ones estate by perjury: so neither does Dr. H's civility in his former Treatise of Schism, justify or excuse him for abusively treating mat­ters of such concernments as Eternity, nor consequently could his courteous stile oblige S. W. to treat him tender­ly and favourably, whom the weightiest and worthiest Cause had more prowerfully pre-obliged to lay him open plainly.

This being then most evidently the sense of that place, let us see whether Dr. H's witts were well awake, or his charity very methodicall, when he answered them. He neither goes about to grant or deny the invalidity of those pretended excuses: which onely was to be done: but in­stead thereof makes a piece of a sermon to you, very Chri­stianly telling you how you ought to behave your self, in case you receive a private affront, and then being got in­to the Common-place of suffering injuries patiently, he runs division upon that ground, with Greek and testimo­nies, telling us that we must turn the other cheek to him that strikes us on the right, that we must pray forthem that des­pitefully use us, fraternally admonish, &c. and then layes it to S. W's conscience. In return I appeal to his Conscien­ce, and reason both, whether all this be any thing to this question, whether the sweetnesse of the breath justify the affront of spitting in ones face, or civil language sufficient­ly excuse pernicious doctrine.

His answer to the second is yet more pleasant. For in­stead of telling us whether swearing demurely be any ex­cuse for perjury, so as to secure it from the punishment or treaty which otherwise might iustly be given it, he tells us [Page 31] in good sober sadnesse, that a man may use all lawfull means to defend his estate and discover perjury, and blames me for accusing him of perjurious tampering; and that I might as truly have said that he offered sacrifice to Idols, con­sulted with Necromencers, &c. which superadds to the for­mer errour, that he mistakes the comparison or similitu­de, for the thing it is brought to parallel or resemble; and by his own litterall acception of it, will needs accuse him self of perjury whether S. W. will or no. And are not the­se pretty mistakes?

Yet these are not all, there is yet another behind grea­ter than all the rest, if that may be call'd a mistake which sprung from the Will, and can hardly be father'd upon the weakest Vnderstanding: I made it my onely plea to the Reader for some blowes of mine, which he might ap­prehend too rude, that our controversy was about things concerning mens eternall salvation; and therefore the Reader knowing that I (as all Catholicks do) hold my Faith certain, he had no reason to expect I should favour an Opponent in an act of such a nature, as is publickly harmfull to men's soules; hence I ended my first para­graph, that I would have very litle contention with him, were the difference between us in any thing of lesse concern­ment than Eternity; and the whole second paragraph proceeds upon the same ground. Now the Dr. in his Answer, where he pretends my conviction, takes no no­tice of my plea, but leaves out the end of the first para­graph now cited, to which the two parallel questions re­lated, and to which they ought to be applyed; transfer­ring the matter from the publick injury to men's soules, to the case of a private injury of one single Christian to another: whereas our question is not whether if one strike one on the right cheek, according to Christ's law, he must turn the other; but whether if a man be certainly held to have ruin'd some soules eternally, Christ bids us let him [Page 32] mine more; or whether, if the wolf worry some sheep, the shepheard ought to give him more? if not, then whether courtesy ought to have place towards such a de­stroyer of soules in those very writings with which he en­deavours it, or rather whether it be not an obligation to shew it home what he is, as far as his faultinesse ma­kes good the truth of the words? This answer of his the­refore is either totally impertinent to my question; or el­se the application of it must force this inference; Christ bid us turn the left cheek to him that strikes us on the right, therefore if a perverter of soules carry one to hell, resist him not, but let him carry more; or if a robber climbe in to the fold, and kill one sheep, a good Christian ought in conscience rather than be discourteous yield him another. Is not this strange Logick? but that which fol­lowes will in part justify it.

Is it possible one should trip so often in running over a litle leaf of paper almost as intelligible as legible? Yet we have not done so: followes in the Dr's Aswer p. 7. ‘If he mark, his stile which was robust in the mention of perjury, is grown much fainter, when he comes to the [...] pretends to no more than perverse meaning and abusiue treating matters of Religion, &c.’ Where you see Mr. H. makes account that the abusive treating matters of Religion, which is able to plunge millions of soules into eternal damnation, is of lesse moment then per­jury against one's temporall estate: though one who had never read Dr. H. would surely think that the charge of abusive treating matters of religion, being a businesse en­trenching upon eternity, is much more robust, (as he calls it) than that of ruining a temporall estate by perjury; since I think there is no good Christian but holds the eternall losse of one soul redeemed with Christ's most precious bloud, is of more worth than all the temporall riches this world can boast of. Is this man fit to have the charge [Page 33] of souls, who professes to set more by his temporal than their eternal felicity? yet this is the method of Charity he promised us in the beginning of this Section. It seems that in this book also his old misfortune pursues him, that he is there most preposterous still in his discourse, where he pretends to be most methodical. See Schism Disarm'd, pag. 229. 230.

Answ. p. 7. His last complaint against me is, that it is in S. W. a transgression of the rules of Art as well as Iu­stice, no other than the meanest begging the question, to sup­pose that guil [...] which he was to prove, to assume so early in the Epistle to the Reader what he must (but hath not yet so much as attempted to) demonstrate. Where note first that Dr. H. would have us believe, he made account that the Epist­le to the Reader is to be writ by the Authour before he writes the book; though other men use to make it their last task: next, he pretends that S. W. who was to answer his book, ought to prove and demonstrate, that is, oppose and object: which are two very good counterfeited and af­fected mistakes; for I should be loath to wrong his judg­ment so much as to think he meant them seriously. These two artless suppositions without doubt proceeded from the same method he promised us in the beginning of the Section.

The Reader may perceive by this what a pittifull spe­ctacle Dr. H. would be, if S. W. should take the paines to dissect his book, and show how all the Anatomy of his reason is composed of such weaknesses; every Section being very pregnant and full of them: but they are in the­se books swell'd to such a formidable number, that they both deterre him from that lesse necessary task, and he feares also lest they might cloy the Reader with their too-Comick relation.

His third Section maintains, his self-bred persuasion that ( Answ. p. 8.) the Authour of the Epistle from Brux­ells [Page 34] was the Penman of at least the first part of Schism Disarm'd; and his first argument to prove it, is the kindness Schism Disarm'd shows to that Epistle, affording it a very large Encomium, which he here puts down. So that first Schism Disarm'd must be suppos'd to be writ by the Authour of the Apology for Tradition because he finds there the said Apology highly commended; and then straight he concludes from the same argument that the Epistle from Bruxells is the same Authour's also, and these positions must onely hang together by the necess [...]ty of that worthy person's praising himself. If this be not to profess courtesy openly, and yet s [...]ily to practice the height of discourtesy, I profess myself much to seek in understanding the notions of either. But why is he ima­gin'd the Penman of but at least the first part of Schism Disarm'd? Is not Schism Disarm'd all the same style, or is it at all like the style of the Catholick Gentleman's Letter? Sure, no man who ever understood what a style mean't can conjecture either, unless he had wifully a mind to calumniate without any ground of reason.

His second argument to prove the Authour of both Treatises the same, is the affinity between them; so that all Aristotelians and Aristotle, all Platonists and Plato must be concluded to be one and the same Authour, be­cause of the affinity between their writings, I conceived the grounds of that Epistle so well layd, that I could not in reason recede from them, and lay others of mine own; nor did I disown, but rather express my behol­dingness to it, and shall endeavour to requite the favour by vindicating it from his Reply as far as it concernes us joyntly: nor am I much afraid that Dr. H. tells us here, it is certain that he hath made a reply to it all; knowing well how many books are called Replyes and Answers, which yet need never answer to those names. The deaf Country-maid who being ask't which was the [Page 35] way to London, replyed, a poak full of plums, gave an answer; but it is another question whether that answer were either pertinent or satisfactory. As for the Authour of that Epistle, he needs trouble himself no further: it was writ by one of M. H's old acquaintance, who was willing to honour his book of Schism, by showing that he thought it worth the least strictures of his learned pen.

The Reply to the Catholick Gentleman consisted of 165. pages, this Answer to Schism Disarm'd of 303. yet this latter ( Answer▪ p. 9.) he calls an Appendix to the former, and gleaning after the rake: as if Appendixes used to be twice as big as the principal; or that husband­men used to rake armefulls, and leave cart-loads to be gleaned. However he shall see, I hope, ere we come to an end of this Treatise of mine, how ill he hath husban­ded his reason, both in taking and gleaning. His com­plaint, that I took no notice of his Reply in my book, objecting that I had time to have done so, and that he can­not apprehend my retirement or imployment so strict, as not to hear of it, is onely his mis-apprehension; since I assu­re him Schism Disarm'd was out of my hands, long ere his Reply to the Catholik Gentleman came abroad; nor was I in such circumstances as to see his Reply, till my own was already printed, as all who are acquainted with me and my occasions can testify: so thar Mr. H. should not have concluded I had time to have taken notice of it without certainty of the thing; and may learn hence how many things may be true, which he cannot appre­hend. He shall never find me unwilling to take notice of any thing he writes in favour of his cause; if I conceive it likely to endamage the dear souls of my Brethren and Countrymen.

Sect. 5.
Some previous Grounds proposed, concluding rationally the whole Controversy.

BEfore we come to close seriously with Mr. H. because the summe of his art consists in blundering the plai­nest truths with multitudes of wordish evasions, I thought fitting to lay down in most manifest and evident termes some Grounds which were most pertinent to our future discourse, and some deductions emergent thence; by the bare position and explication of which, I doubt not to gain so far upon the rational Reader, that he shall confess he sees the question truly stated, and according to plain reason resolved: and if he carries these notions along with him with cautious and diligent reflection, he shall find no difficulty in any main point which concerns this present Controversy.

The first Ground then shall be this, that The first pretenders to reform in the point of the Popes Authority in England, found England actually subiect to that Au­thority in Ecclesiastical matters. This Ground carries it's Evidence in it's own terms; since they could not be truly called the first Reformers from it, unless befo­re, that Authority had been there acknowledged. Nei­ther matters it when and by whom this Reformation begun, since still the Ground now layd stands firm; for the very word Reformation (which they pretend) argues that tenet was held before Hence all the evasions in Dr. H. are concluded vain; who, when we plead that the Pope was found in possession of this Authority in England, flies off presently, and denies it, saying he had no title to such an Authority there: whereas when we maintain his possession, we pretend not yet a Right [Page 37] (which is our inference thence) but that actually Eng­land was under such an Authority, and acknowledg'd it; whether it were rightly pretended or injustly remains to be inferred: which the Dr. mistaking, and not distin­guishing between possession and right, sayes we beg the question; when we onely take what is evident, that he was in possession, and thence infer a right, until the con­trary be proved.

The second Ground is, that This Authority actually over England, and acknowledged there, was acknowledged likewise to be that of the Head of the Vniversal Church, and not of a Patriarchate onely▪ This Ground is no less evi­dent than the former, by our adversaries confession; since this is the Authority they impugn as unlawfull, and from which they reformed; which last word implies the actual acknowledgment that Authority had before. Hence Mr. H's digression, to show that Kings could erect and translate Patriarchates, was perfectly frivolous, as far as concerns this purpose: for whether they can change Pa­triarchates or no is impertinent, when we are questioning an Authority above Patriarchs and pretended to be con­stituted by Christ himself.

The third Ground is, that This Papal Authority a­ctually over the Ecclesiastical affaires in England was held then as of Christ's Institution, and to have been derived to the Pope, as he was Successour to S. Peter. The truth of this appears by the known confession of the then Roman Church, and the self-same Controversy perpetually con­tinued till this day.

The fourth Ground is that This actual power the Pope then had in England, had been of long continuance, and settled in an ancient Possession. This is evinced both from our Adversaries grant, the evidence of the fact it self, and even by the carriage of S. Aust in the Monk, and the Ab­bot of Bangor, exprest in that counterfeited testimony al­ledged [Page 38] by Dr. H. whence we see it was the doctrine S. Au­stin taught the Saxons.

The fifth Ground shall be, that No Possession ought to be disturbed without sufficient motives and reasons: and consequently it self is a title, till those reasons invalidate it, and show it null. This is evident first by Nature's Principles, which tell us there is no new cause requisite for things to remain as they are; wheras, on the other side, nothing can be changed, without some cause actually wor­king, and of force proportionable to the weight and set­tledness of the thing to be moved. Secondly by Morals, which teach us that mans understanding cannot be chan­ged from any opinion or beleef, without motives; ought not, without sufficient ones; and consequently needs no new motive to continue it in any former assent, besides the foregoing Causes which put it there. Thirdly, we find that Politicks give testimony to, or rather stand up­on this Ground; assuring us when any Government is quietly settled, it ought so to stand till sufficient motives, and reasons in Policy, that is a greater common good, urge a change. And if Possession were held no title, then the Welshmen might still pretend to command England, and each line or race, which preceded and was outed, quarrel with any subsequent one though never so long set­tled, and so no certain right at all would be found of any possession in the World, till we come to Adam's time. Fourthly, as for the particular Laws of our Countrey, they clearly agree in the same favour for Possession. I shall onely instance in one common case. If I convey Black­ [...]cre to I. S. for the life of I. N. and after wards I. S. dy, in this case, because I cannot enter against mine own Grant, and all the world else have equal title, whoever first enters into the land is adjudged the true and rightfull Owner of it during the life of I. N. and that by the sole title of Occupancy, as they call it, which they wholly [Page 39] ground upon this known reason, that in equality of pre­tensions Possession still casts the ballance. Nay such re­gards is given by our Law to Possession, that were the right of a former Title never so evident, yet a certain time of peaceable Possession undisturb'd by the contrary claim, would absolutely bar it. And here I should take my self obliged to ask my Adversary's pardon, for using such words as a Dr. of Divinity is not presumed to be acquain­ted with, did not his own Example at least excuse, if not provoke my imitation. Thus much of the force of Pos­session in general, without descending to the nature of ours in particular, that is, of such a Possession as is justly presumable to have come from Christ.

Hence followes, that, since Possession of Authority must stand till sufficient Reasons be alledged that it was unjust, those Motives and Reasons ought to be weighed, whether they be sufficient or no, ere the Authority can be rejected: wherefore since the relinquishing any Authori­ty actually in power before, makes a material breach from that Government; the deciding the question onely stands in examining those Reasons which oppose its law­fulness, since the sufficiency of them cleares the breakers, the insufficiency condemns them, and in our case makes the material Schism formal. Let the Reader then judge how little advised Dr. H. was in stating the question right­ly and clearly ( of Schism pag 10.) where he tells us that the motives are not worth he eding in this controversy, but onely the truth of the matter of fact. For the matter of fact, to wit, that there was then an actual Government, and that they broke from it, being evident to all the world, and confest by themselves; if there be no reasons to be examined, he is convinced by his own words to be a Schis­matick, so flatly and palpably, that it is left impossible for him even to pretend a defence.

The sixth Ground shall be, that Such a Possession as [Page 40] that of the Pope's Authority in England was held, ought not to be changed or rejected upon any lesser motives or reasons, than rigorous and most manifest Evidence that it was usurp't. The reasons for this are fetch't by parity from that which went before & onely the proportions added. For in mo­ving a Body in nature, the force of the cause must be proportion'd to the gravity, settledness, and other ex­trinsecal impediments of the Body to be moved, other­wise nothing is done. In morals, the motives of dissent ought to be more powerfull than those for the former con­tinuance in assent, otherwise a soul as a soul (thas is, as rational) is not, or ought not to be moved: and so in the rest. Now that nothing less than Evidence, rigorously and perfectly such, can justify a rejecting of that Autho­rity, is thus show'd. That Authority was held as of Faith, and to have been constituted by Christ's own mouth; it had been acknowledgedly accounted for such by multi­tudes of pious & learned men for many ages before, & in all Christian Countries of the Communion of the Roman Church, whereof England was one. It claimed Vniuersal Tradition for it's tenour, an Authority held of great effi­cacy by our very Adversaries: the rejecting it, if ground­less, was known to be an hainous Schism, and to unknit the whole frame of the Churche's present Government; which by consequence must render it in an high degree damnable to those who should go about to violate it.

Now then let us consider whether a Reason in it's own nature probable (for except rigorous Evidence no reason can be more) and no way in it's self obliging the Vnder­standing to assent, be a sufficient and secure motive to reject an Authority of so long continuance, held sacred, and of Christ's Institution, of such importance to the peace of the Church, in rejecting which if one happen to mistake, he is liable to the horrid vice of Schism, and it's condign punishment, eternal damnation. It must then [Page 41] be most pe [...]fect demonstrative Evidence, such as forces the understanding to assent, which can in common pru­dence engage a man to hazard his salvation by renouncing that Authority. Let Dr. H. then remember that they must be such kind of Evidences which can serve his turn; not any ordinary, common sleight testimony-proofs, which for the most part arrive not to the pitch of a poor probability in them selves, but compar'd to the tenour of our Government, Vniversal Tradition, vanish into aire; or, which is less, into nothing.

To make this yet clearer, let us suppose (as it happens in our case) that they who began to reform in this point first, and to deny the lawfulness of this Authority, were bred up formerly in a contrary belief, ortherwise they must have received it from their Fathers, which would quite spoil the supposition of being the first Reformers: Nei­ther is it likely that multitudes began to think or speak a­gainst it all in one instant, but either one or some few chief, who propagated it by suggesting it to the rest. Now then let us consider what motives are sufficient to oblige these men to this new-begun disbelief and disobedience, so as to absolve them even in common prudence from a most self-conceited pride, and desperate precipitancy.

In prejudice of them is objected, that heretofore they held that forme of Government as of Faith, and acknow­ledged to receive it upon the same sole certain Rule of Faith which assured them that Christ was God: the whole Church they left had confessedly for some ages held the same, so that it was now found in quiet Posses­sion. If they were learned, they could not but in some measure penetrare the force of Vniversal Tradition, which stood against them in this point▪ since orall Tradition) of which we speak (was pleaded by Catholicks for this point, but never so much as pretented by the separaters against it; because Reformation in a point of Faith, and Tradi­tion [Page 42] of it destroy one the other. In a word, should all these most ponderous Considerations be waved, and one­ly the Authority of the Church they left consider'd, t'is impossible they should reform, unless they should con­clude millions of Doctours which had been in the Church, many of them reverenced even yet by the Protestants for their admirable learning, to be ignorant in comparison of themselves; or else all insincere, and to have wronged their Conscience in holding and teaching against their knowledge.

Now let any ingenuous person consider whether such a strange self-extolling judgment, and condemning others, ought in reason be made by a few men against the afore­said most important motives, without a most undeniable and open Evidence, able to demonstrate palpably and convincingly that this pretended Government was unjust and usurp't. And if the first Reformers could have no just and lawfull, that is, evident Ground to begin their dis­obedience to that Government, neither can their Prose­lytes and Successours the Protestanrs have any pretence for continuing it; since in matters belonging to Eternity, whose nature is unchangeable by the occurrence of hu­mane circumstances, none can lawfully adhere to that which could never lawfully be begun: Neither are there any proofs against that Authority producible now, which were not producible then.

The seventh ground is, that No Evidence can possibly be given by the Protestants obliging the understanding to beleeve that this Authority was usurp't. This is proved by the case of the first Reformers now explicated, whose words could not in any reason be imagin'd evident a­gainst such an universall Verdict of the whole Church they left, and particularly of all the learned men in it, incom­parably and confessedly more numerous, and as know­ing as any have been since. Yet we shall further evince it [Page 43] thus. They pretend not to any evidence from natural Principles concluding demonstratively that the former Government was usurp't▪ nor yet from oral Tradition, since their immediate Forefathers deliver'd them other doctrine, else the Reformation could never have begun, against our common Supposition. Their Grounds then must be testimonial proofs from Scriptures, Fathers, or Councils. But since these are most manifestly liable to be interpreted divers ways (as appears de facto) no suffi­cient assurance can be pretended hence, without eviden­cing either more skill to fetch out their certain sense, or more sincerity to acknowledge what they knew, than was found in the Church they left: a task I am perswa­ded few will undertake, I am confident none can perform; since all the world knows, that the vast number of emi­nent and learned Doctors we have had in the process of so many ages, and extent of so many Countries, were persons not meanly vers't in Scriptures, Fathers & Coun­cills, & yet held all these most consonant [...]to the Catholick doctrine, though the polemical vein of the Schools, which left nothing not throughly ventilated, gave them am­ple occasion to look into them. Adde to this, that our late Doctors and Controvertists have not feared nor neg­lected to answer all those testimonies, and produce a far greater number out of all the said Authorities; nor have they behaved themselves so in those conflicts, that the indifferent part of the world have held them non-sensical, which surely they would, had they deemed the other a perfect and rigorous Evidence.

From hence followes, that, though they may blunder and make a show with testimonies, yet in reality they can never produce sufficient, that is evident reasons thence, for rejecting a Government qualify'd with so many circum­stances to confirm and establish it. Though I must confess, if they could demonstrate by evident and unavoidable [Page 44] connexion of termes from some undeniable authority that this Government was unjust, their Vnderstandings would in that case be obliged to assent to that inference: But this is not to be hoped, as long as divers words have di­vers significations, as divers Sentences by reference to di­vers others put on different faces, or by relation to several circumstances in history give us occasion to raise several conjectures. Again, if Evidence were easily producible from such kind of wordish testimonies, yet they would still be as far to seek for an Authority whence to alledge those testimonies, comparable to that of the Church they left; since they can never even pretend to show any company of men so incomparably numerous, so unquestionably learned, holding certainly, as of Faith, and as received from the Apostles, that Government which they impu­gned, and this so constantly for so many hundred years, so unanimously and universally in so many Countries where knowledge most flourish't, testifying the same also in their General Councels: all which by their own aknowleged­ment was found in the Church they left.

The eihtgh Ground is, that The proofs alledged by Protestants against us bear not even the weight of a pro­bability to any prudent man who penetrates and considers the contrary motives. For the proofs they alledge are te­stimonies, that is words capable of divers senses, as they shall be diversely play'd upon by wits, Scholars, and Cri­ticks; and it is by experience found that generally speak­ing, their party and ours give severall meanings to all the Testimonies controverted between us. Now it is mani­fest, that computing the vastnefs of the times and places in which our Profession hath born sway, we have had near a thousand Doctors for one of the Protestants; who, though they ever highly venerated, and were well versed in all the Ancient Fathers and Councells, yet exprest no difficulty in those proofs, but on the contrary made cer­tain [Page 45] account that all Antiquity was for them. Thus much for their knowledge.

Neither ought their sincerity run in a less proportion than their number, unless, the contrary could be evidently manifested, which I hear not to be pretended; since they are held by our very Adversaries, and their acts declare them to have been pious in other respects, and, on the other side, considering the corruptness of our nature, the prejudice ought rather to stand on the part of the disobey­ers, than of the obeyers of any Government. Since then no great difficulty can be made but that we have had a thousand knowing men for one, and no certainty manife­sted, nor possible to be manifested, that they were uncon­scientious, we have had in all morall estimation a thou­sand to one in the meanes of understanding aright these testimonial proofs; and then I take not that to have any morall probability which hath a thousand to one a­gainst it.

But I stand not much upon this, having a far better game to play; I mean the force of Tradition, which is fortify'd which such and so many invincible reasons, that to lay them out at large, and as they deserve, were to tran­scribe the Dialogues of Rusworth, the rich Storehouse of them: to them I refer the Reader for as ample as satis­faction as even Scepticism can desire, and onely make use at present of this Consideration; that if it be impossible that all the now-Fathers of Families in the Catholick Church, disperst in so many nations, should conspire to tell this palpablely to their Children, that twenty yeares a­goe such a thing (visible and practical as all points of Faith are) was held in that Church, if no such thing had been, and that consequently the same impossibility holds in each twenty yeares upwards till the Apostles, by the same reason by which it holds in the last twenty; then it followes evidently, that what was told us to have been [Page 46] held twenty yeares agoe, was held ever, in case the Church held nothing but upon this Ground, that so she received or had been taught by the immediately-foregoing Faith­full: for as long as she pretends onely to this Ground, the difficulty is equal in each twenty yeares, that is, there is an equal impossibility they should conspire to this pal­pable lie. Now that they ever held to this Ground, (that is, to the having received it from their Ancestours,) is manifested by as great an Evidence. For since they now hold this Ground, if at any time they had taken it up, they must either have counterfeited that they had received it from their Ancestours, or no. The former relapses into the abovesaid impossibility; or rather greater, that they should conspire to tell a lie in the onely Ground of their Faith, and yet hold (as they did) their Faith built upon that Ground to be truth: the latter position must discre­dit it self in the very termes, which imply a perfect contra­diction, for it is as much as to say, nothing is to be held as certainty of Faith, but what hath descended to us from our Forefathers; and yet the onely Rule which tells us certainly there is any thing of Faith, is newly invented. Wherefore, unless this chain of Tradition be shown to have been weak in some link or other, the case between us is this; whether twenty testimonies liable to many exceptions, and testify'd by experience to be disputable between us, can bear the force even of a probability a­gainst the universal acknowledgment and testification of millions and millions in any one age, in a thing visible and practical: To omit that we are far from being de­stitute of testimonies to counterpoise, nay incomparably over poise theirs. By this Ground, and the reason for it, the Reader may judge what weak and trivial proofs the best of Protestant Authours are able to produce against the clear Verdict of Tradition, asserted to be infallible by the strongest supports of Authority and reason.

[Page 47] To stop the way against the voluntary mistakes of mine Adversary, I declare my self to speak here not of written Tradition to be sought for in the Scriptures and Fathers, which lies open to so many Cavils and excep­tions; but of oral Tradition, which (supposing the mo­tives with which it was founded, and the charge with which it was recommended by the Apostles) carries in it's own force, as apply'd to the nature of mankind, an infallible certainty of it's lineal and never-to-be-inter­rupted perpetuity, as Rushworth's Dialogues clearly de­monstrate,

Sect. 6.
The Continuation of the same Grounds.

THe ninth Ground is, that, The Catholick Church and her Champions ought in reason to stand upon Pos­session. This is already manifested from the fifth Ground, since Possession is of it's self a title, till sufficient motives be produced to evidence it an usurpation; as hath there been shown. By this appears the injustice of the Prote­stants, who would have it thought reasonable, that we should seem to quit our best tenour, Possession attested by Tradition, and fall upon the troublesome and labo­rious method of citing Authours, in which they will ac­cept of none but whom they list; and, after all our pains and quotations, directly refuse to stand to their judgment: as may be seen in the Protestant's Apology; in which by the Protestant's own confessions the Fathers held tho­se opinions, which they object to us for errours.

The tenth Ground is, that, In our Controversies about Religion, reason requires that we should sustain the part of the Defendant, they of the Opponent. This is already sufficiently proved, since we ought to stand upon the title [Page 48] of Possession, as a Ground beyond all arguments, untill it be convinced to be malae fidei, which is impossible; they, to produce sufficient arguments that it was unjust: that is, they must oppose or object, we defend; they ought to argue, we to answer. Hence appeares how meanly skill'd Dr. H. is in the art of disputing, com­plaining many times in his last Book that I bring no Te­stimonies out of Antiquity, and that I do not prove things in my Schism Disarm'd; whereas that Treatise being de­sign'd for an Answer to his Book of Schism, had no obli­gation to prove my tenet, but onely to show that his ar­guments were unconclusive. Hence also is discover'd how manifestly weak and ridiculous Mr. H. was in the se­cond part of the most substantial Chapter of his book of Schism, where hemakes account he hath evidence S. Pe­ter had not the Keyes given him particularly, by solving our places of Scripture for that tenet: where (besides other faults in that process, which Schism Disarm'd told him of,) he commits three absurditi [...]. First, in putting him­self upon the side of the Defendant; wheras he ought and pretended to evidence, that is, to prove. Secondly, by imagining that the solving an Argument is an Evidence for the contrary; whereas the force of such a solution is terminated onely in showing that illation weak, but leaves it ind [...]fferent whether the thing in it self be so or no, or evi­dently deducible from some other Argument. Thirdly, he falsly supposes that we build our Faith upon those places of the written words, as explicable by wit, not by Tradition, and the practise of our Church, whereas we onely own the delivery from father to son as the Ground of all our belif, and make this the onely Rule by which to explicate Scripture. However some Doctors of ours un­detrake sometimes ex superabundanti to argue ad homi­nem, and show our advantage over them, even in that which they most pretend to.

[Page 49] I know Mr. H. will object that all this time I have pleaded for him, whiles I went about to strengthen the title of Possession; since they are at present in actual Pos­session of their Independency from the Pope: and there­fore that in all the consequences following thence I have but plow'd his ground with mine own heifer. But the Reader may please to consider, that, though I spoke be­fore of Possession in general and abstractedly, yet, in de­scending to particular sorts of Possessions, we must take along with us those particular circumstances which ne­cessarily accompany them, and design them to be such. Since then it were unworthy the wisdom of the Eternal Father, that our Blessed Saviour Iesus Christ, coming to plant à Church, should not provide for it's Being and Peace, which confist in Order and Government; it fol­lows that Christ instituted the Government of the Church. In our case then the Possession of Government must be such a Possession, as may be presumable to have come from Christ's time; not of such an one, as every one knows when it began. Since then it is agreed upon by all sides, that this present possession the Protestants now have of their Independency was begun lately, it is impossible to presume it to be that which was instituted by Christ, unless they evidence the long settled possession of that Authority they renounced to have been an usurpation; and, on the contrary, unless they evidence this, that Possession is justly presumable to have come from Christ's time, the maintainers and claimers of it making this their main tenour, that truly it came from Christ. Now then seeing we hear no news from any good hand, nor manifest tokens of the beginning of this universal and proud Vsurpation, which could not in reason but draw af­ter it a train of more visible consequences, and be accom­pany'd with a multitude of more palpable circumstances than the renouncing it in England, which yet is most no­torious [Page 50] to the whole world; again, since the disagree­ment of their own Authours about the time of it evident­ly shows that the pretended invasion of this Authority is not evident; hence, both for these and other reasons al­so, such a Possession as this, is of it's self, and in it's own nature capable of pleading to have been derived from Christ, that is, to be that Possession which we speak of: whereas the other is discountenanc'd by it's confest and known original, which makes it not capable of it self to pretend that Christ instituted it, unless it be help't out with the additional proof, that it had been expulsed from an ancienter Possession by this usurpation of the Pope. So that, to say the truth, this present Possession of theirs makes nothing at all for their purpose, since it is no ways valid, but in vertute of their evidences that the same Pos­session had been anciētly setled in a long peace before our pretended invasion: and if they can evidence this, and that we usurp't, then it is needless, and vain to plead pre­sent Possession at all; since that Possession which is evi­denced to have been before ours, is questionless that which was settled by Christ. In a word, though in humane af­faires where Prescription has force, we use to call [...]t Pos­session, when one hath enjoyed any thing for some cer­tain time; yet in things of divine Institution, against which no prescription pleads, he onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that he had it nearer Christ's time: and by consequence, he who shall be found to have begun it later, unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter Possession, is not, for the present having such a thing or Power, to be styled a Pos­sessour; but an Vsurper, an intruder, an invader, disobe­dient, rebellious, and (in our case) Schismatical.

I am not ignorant that Dr. H. rawly affirmes that the Pope's Authority began in Phocas his time, but I hope no Reader that cares much for his salvation, wil take his [Page 51] word for honest, till he show undeniable and evident matters of fact, concerning the beginning, progress, Au­thours, abetters, opposers, of that newly introduc't Go­vernment of Head of the Church, the writers that time for it, or against it, the changes it made in the face of the Ecclesiastical State, and the temporal also, with whose interest the other must needs be enlinsk't, and what con­sequences follow'd upon those changes; together with all the circumstances which affect visible and extern actiōs. Otherwise, against the sense of so many Nations in the Church they left, the force of Tradition and so many un­likelihoods prejudicing it, to tell us onely a crude Story that is was so, or putting us off with three or four quota­tions in Greek to no purpose, or imagining some chimeri­cal possibilities how it might have been done, hardly con­sisting with the nature of mankind, is an Answer unwor­thy a man, much more a Doctor; and to say that it crep't in invisibily and unobserved, as dreams do into men's heads when they are asleep, is the part of some dreaming dull head, who never lookt into the actions and nature of man, or compared them with the motives which should work upon them.

The eleventh Ground is, that Historical proofs which manifest onely Fact, do not necessarily conclude a Rig [...]t. This is evident; First, because testimonies conclude no more than then express: but they express onely the Fact: therefore they conclude onely that the Fact was such a person's, not that the Right was his. Secondly, because no matter of Fact which concerns the execution of any busi­ness is such, but it may be performed by another who hath no proper Rigth, but borrows it from the delegation of some other, to whom it properly belongs; as we see in Vice-Roys. Thirdly, because in a process of fifteen or six­teen hundred years it cannot be imagin'd but there should happen some matters of Fact either out of ambition, inter, [Page 52] est, ignorance, or tyranny, against the most inviolable Right in the world; nay even sometimes out of too much zeal and piety, great men, if they have not discretion pro­portionable, will be medling with things which do not concern them as we see by daily experience. Now a te­stimony of a matter of Fact can never conclude any thing, unless it be first manifested that that Act our when he pro­ceeded to action was bassed with none of these, but go­verned himself by pure Reason; that is, unless it be ma­nifested that he had Right: and if testimonies can be pro­duced expressing that he had Right, it was needless to stand alledging those which express't onely Fact. Frivo­lous therefore it is to bring historical proofs of Fact upon the stage, in a dispute about Right; since, taken alone, they make onely a dumb show, and can act no part in that Controversy: for the very alledging that some of these faults might intervene, disables such premises from inferring a Right. Neither ought Mr. H. (which, I sup­pose for want of Logick, or forgetfulness how men use to dispute, he is ever apt to do) exact of the Defendant a reason of his denial in particular: but it is his part to pro­ve that none of these defects could happen, otherwise his Premisses of Fact hang together with his Conclusion of Right by no necessity of consequence. Let the Reader then take notice by this plain information of reason, how senselesly Dr. H. behaved himself in the business of ere­cting and translating Patriarchates, and in many other places, where from some particular matters of Fact he would needs conclude a Right.

The twelfth Ground is, that The acceptation of the se­cular powers, and their command to the people, are neces­sary to the due and fitting execution of the Churches Lawes; whence follows not that the Princes made those Lawes by their own Authority, but that they obey'd and executed what the Church had order'd: For unless the [Page 53] Churche's Ordinances should be put into temporal laws, which oblige to their observance by aw and fear of punishment, they could hardly ever find an universal reception; since otherwise refractory and turbulent Spi­rits, who cared not much for their obligation in con­fcience, might at pleasure reject, disobey, and reclame a­gainst them: which would both injure the Authority of the Church, and scandalize the community of the Faith­full. This therefore being of such an absolute convenien­cy for the Church, we need not wonder that the tempo­ral power (of Christians) should put the Churche's orders into temporal Laws, and execute their performance; nor consequently can testimonies of such execution and laws, prejudice the Pope' s Right, since Catholick Governours do the self same at present, (as far as concerns this point) which was done then.

The thirteenth Ground is, that It is granted by Catho­licks, that Kings may exercise some Ecclesiastical Iuris­diction, by the concession of the Church, and yet not pre­judice thereby the Pope's Vniversal Pastourship. This is most visible from the unanimous acknowledgment of all Catholick Authours, and verifyed by divers practical in­stances. Hence it is evident that Dr. H. must either ma­nifest likewise, that the lawfulness of those matters of Fact related of Kings was not originiz'd from the Churche's precedent orders, or else he concludes nothing at all a­gainst us. Here I desire the Reader & Mr. H. may joynt­ly take notice, that the testimonies himself alledges from the Church in her Councils, granting this to the Secular power, is a strong prejudice against their self-and-proper Right; as also, that he hath not so much as attempted to produce one Testimony, of any Authority, expressing it to be the Right of the secular Magistrate, independent of the Church.

The fourteenth and last Ground is, that In case Scbism [Page 54] should invade a whole Country, it could not be expected to have happen'd otherwise than D H. (of Schism c.) hath described. For it is to be expected that the secular power should be for it, and so use meanes to make the Clergy & Vniversities assent to his novelty: otherwise had either the Temporal Government awed them, the Pastours of souls consented to inform the people right, or the Vniversities (the Seminaries of learning) conspired to write against that innovation, in all likehood it would have given a stop to it's proceding, at least have hindred it's universal inva­sion. Hence follows that Dr. H's narrative discourse of his Schism hath nothing in it to bewonder us; but rather, that it is as plain and particular a confession of the Fact, as any penitent malefactour could make when he is a­bout to suffer. For, that a Nation may fall into Schism, none doubts; as little, that it should fall into it by those very means, and the same degrees which he there layes down. Nay more, himself disgraces his own Narration by confessing (p. 136.) that the Clergy were inclined to subscribe by the feare of a premunire: and the question about the Pope's Right in England being debated in the Vniversities, he sayes onely p. 135. that it was generally de­fined in the negative; (that is when the King's party pre­vailed) yet he omits that the Kings lust first moved him to think of Schismatizing, and his final repentance of that Act; which show that the first spring which mov'd the whole Engine was not purity of conscience, but the im­purest and basest of passions.

The positions, which I have layed dow for Grounds to our future discourse, will of themselves lay open the whole case clearly to the ordinary Readers; and inform the more prudent ones, that nothing is or can be sayd by Dr H. of a force and clearness comparable to that of our Possession, and that of oral Tradition, which we ever [...]laim'd for our Tenour; from which also they dis­claimed, [Page 55] when they reform'd in this point of the Pope's Supremacy. So that litle more remains to be perform'd, but to manifest his shallow weaknesses, and trivial im­pertinences; which I should willingly omit, if the grea­test part of Readers would be as willing to think a book fully answer'd, when substantial points are shown to be nothing, as they are to catch at the shadow of words as matters of importance, and so imagine nothing done, till they also be reply'd upon. Nor do I fear this task, though ingratefull in it's self and less necessary, will be voyd of fruit, specially to Mr. H's Friends, who may see by this Answer of mine, how bad that cause must be, which can cast so understanding a man, as some of them imagine him, upon such non sense, weaknesses of reasoning, vo­luntary mistakes, falsifications, denying his own words, and many other ridiculous shifts, as shall be seen most amply in the process of this Treatise.

Sect. 7.
Dr. H's accurate mistake of every line of the Introdu­ction to Schism Disarm'd; and his wilful avoy­ding to answer the true import of it.

Mr. H's reason which was gravelled in understanding the plain words in my Epistle to the Reader (as hath been shown) has no better fortune in confuting my Intro­duction. I exprest in the beginning of it, that ‘It bred in me at first some admiration why the Protestants should now print books by pairs to defend themselves from Schism, who heretofore more willingly skirmish't in particular Controversies, than bid battel to the main Body of the Church, &c.’ Vpon which Dr. H. not aware that up­on every new occurrence, or effect, the admirative facul­ty first playes it's parts, and stirres up the reason to disqui­sitiveness [Page 56] for the cause of it (such reflections ly much out of the way of one who gleans testimonies (will not give me leave something to admire at first, till I had found the reason, at an occurrence evidently new, that is, their wri­ting at this time books by pairs to clear them selves from Schism; but is pleased to turn my ordinary, easy, mode­rate words of some admiration at first, into those loud phrase (p. 12. l. 19.) of great, vnheard of news and pro­digy, putting news and prodigy in different letters, that himself might be thought an Oedipus, who had unriddled my imagin'd aenigma. But since any thing which is un­couth and disorderly justly stirres up admiration, what necessity is there that Dr. H. and his Friends should hap to do all things so orderly, wisely, and reasonably, that poore S. W. (whom he confesses here p. 10. l. 36 not to have been of his Councel in his designment) might not be allow'd to have some admiration at first, at their myste­rious imprudence.

But he will needs undertake to allay my admiration (though I was much better satisfy'd with my own reason there given) by telling me, it was seasonable charity to undeceive weak seducible Christians, because the Romish Missaries by pretence of their Schism, endeavour'd to de­fame them out of a persecuted profession. Where first I assure him, that many of those who have of late become Catholicks, are as great Scholars and wits as have been left behind, and so more likely to have been reduced by reason, than seduced by the industry of others working up­on their weakness: the weak seducihle Souls of the for­mer Protestants are either turn'd Quakers, or such like kind of things; those who have run back to the lap of their Mother the Holy Catholick Church, are such as are neither easily deceivable by our Missaries, nor possibly un­deceivable by Dr. H. multitudes of them being such as might wi [...]h far better reason be wish't to have the An­swering [Page 57] of Dr. H. in my stead, than be feared to be mo'vd by his reasons to renounce their own. Nor needed they be tempted by others; their own reason, if disinteressed, could not but inform them that that Religion was not true, that Church but counterfeit, whose grounds were rotten, and whose Fates depended upon the Temporal Power.

Nor hath the other part of that poor sentence scap't better from his artificial mistakes. I onely affirmed, that they heretofore seem'd more willing to skirmish in parti­cular controversies, than bid battel to t [...]e main body of the Church: which he misunderstands, as if I had said that no Protestants ever writ against the Authority of our Church, and then impugnes his own mistake, father'd up­on S. W. very strongly by nominating some few books upon that subject; (Ans. p. 11. l. 2.) pittying himself that he should [...] set to prove, what none said but himself: and truly I pitty him too. But are not there near an hun­dred times that number, who have skirmish't against us in particular Controversies? I hope then this will serve to justify those moderate words of mine, that they seem'd more willing to that task. Yet he triumphs over me, say­ing that it is much juster matter of wonder to him, that S. W. should set out so unauspiciously, as to begin with an ob­servation founded in a visible contrariety to a plain matter of Fact, that every man that thinks of must discern to be so. Thus doth he trample down and then strut over S. W. at the first onset; so potent still and victorious is he, when he fights against his own Chimaera's. I am persuaded a little sooth-saying will serve the Reader to determine who began the more inauspiciously, and at whose door the si­nister bird croak't.

Yet though (saith he) those words had been true, that formerly the Protestants were more willing to skirmish in pa [...]icular Controversies, yet (Dr. H. tells us) it were obvious to every man what might now suggest the change [Page 58] of that course: and what obvious reason might this be but that, after particular Controversies were competently de­bated, to set the▪ Axe to the root of the tree, and stock up Rome's universal Pastourship and infallibility? Where he sees not that the question remains still to be ask't, why the competent debating of particular Controversies should just then end, and the propter time then begin for the Pro­testants to stock up Rome, when themselves had never a legg left them to stand on; and why they should hope then rather to get the upper hand, when they ly flat along themselves, as if Antaeus-like they were stronger by fal­ling.

Again, had many been induced by reason to return to the Catholick Church, yet I cannot understang why the Protestants zeal should think it more seasonable to write Books by pairs against us, than against their other Deser­tours; since they who have gone from them into other Sects are above an hundred for one in comparison of the Catholik Converts; so that had not S. W. found out a reason, to rid himself of his some admiration, he might still have remain'd in it for any thing M. H. hath pro­duc't.

Vpon occasion of my saying, that ‘it was more seaso­nable to denounce to those Sects the unreasonableness of their Schism, than plead the reasonableness of their own;’ he voluntarily mistakes my words, as if I meant that he had confess't it Schism, and then gone about to plead the reasonableness of it: whereas I onely intended (as is evident) that he went about to plead the reasonableness of that which I (who am the Defendant) doe, and must hold for Schism, and consequently may nominate it so, that is of his breaking from our Churche's Government. Yet for this I have lost my credit, this being another [...] (as he tells the Reader, if he can understand Greek) what trust is due to S. W. in his affirmations. Should he make [Page 59] use of the same method, and every time I name them Schis­maticks, or their sect Schism, feign that I say they call themselves so, he might by this art make S. W. a mon­strous lyer, if the Reader were so monstrously silly as to believe him.

In the next place, I must needs (Answ. p. 13.) misun­derstand the nature, and ayme of the Churche's censures, because I tell them, ‘They should rather threaten their Desertours with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication, than cry so loud, Not guilty, when the lash hath been so long upon their own shoulders;’ since he sayes, a Schism arm'd with mig [...]t is not either in prudence or charity to be contended with. Whereas I pretend not that they ought to execute the punishments subsequent to Excommunica­tion, but to separate themselves (had they any Grounds to make it good that they were God's Church) from Schismaticks, and avoid their Communion in Etern a­ctions belonging to God's worship, as God's Church ever accustomed; not [...]caring to denounce and preach to them in plain terms that they are Schismaticks, and cut off from the Church. Neither is this against Charity, since, (Schism being such an hainous and damnable sin) Charity avou­ches, nay makes it an obligation to manifest Schismaticks to be such; that they who have faln may apprehend the s [...]d state they are in, and thence take occasion to arise, and they who stand may beware of falling into that dangerous gulf, which once open'd the earth to swallow Core Da­than, and Abiron. Nor is it against prudence, since eve­ry one knows the permitting the weaker sort to commu­n [...]cate with enemies in those very circumstances which may endanger them, is the onely way to ruine any Go­vernment either Spiritual or Temporal.

At least why should they not dare (had they Grounds to bear them out) to do the same as the Catholicks did, during the time of their greatest persecution under the [Page 60] Protestant Government; that is, let them be known to be Schismaticks, and make the people abstain in divine mat­ters from their contagious Communion. But the confest uncertainty of their Faith makes them squeamish to as­sume to themselves any such Authority, and therefore they are forced by their very Grounds, when their Secular Power is gone, to turn discipline into courtesy in matters of Government, as they do in controversy turn zeal into civility and complement. When he talks here piously of the Romanists sanguin try method, sure he hath forgotten that ever Priests were hang'd, drawn, and quarter'd for their Faith at Tiburn, and all over England, in the time of their cruel Reign; or, if he remembers it, he thinks to make us amends by preaching, like a Saint, of their meekness, of edification, and the more tragically-pittifull expressions of lamenting the ruptures of the Christian world (which themselves have made) with rivers of teares of bloud. Answ. p. 13.

The next Section begins with the rehearsal of my rea­son, why no colourable pretence can be alledged by the Protestants why they left us, but the same will hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them; which I exprest thus: ‘For that we prest them to believe false fundamentals Dr. H. and his Friends will not say, since they acknowledge ours a true Church, which is incon­sistent with such a lapse. They were therefore in their opinion things tolerable which were urged upon them; and, if not in the same rank, yet more deserving the Church should command their observance, than Copes, or Surplices, or the book of Common Prayer, the allow­ance whereof they prest upon their Quondam brethen.’ Which words though as moderately and modestly ex­pressing the matter as could be invented, yet the Reader shall see what a character the Doctors peevish zeal hath set upon them; to wit, that (Answ. p. 14.) there are in [Page 61] them too many variations from the Rules of sober discour­se, so many indications of S. W. his temper, that it will not be easy to enumerate them.

It shall be seen presently whether the Doctors Dis­course or mine went a rambling when we writ. The te­nour of my Argument ad hominem, was this: The falsi­ties which you pretend we prest upon you, were either acknowledged by you to have been fundamental, or not-fundamental, that is, tolerable: that you acknowledg'd them fundamental you will not say, since falsity in a fun­damental ruines the essence of a Church, which yet you grant ours to have; therefore they were according to you not-fundamental or tolerable; yet such kind of not-fun­damental points as were more importing to be prest upon you by us, than Copes or Surplices, which you prest up­on them: therefore you can alledge no reason why you left us, but they may alledge the same or a greater why they left you. This evidently is the sense of my words to any man who can understand common reason; and the ans­wer to them ought to be a manifesting-some solid motive why they left us, which the other Sects cannot with better right defend themselves with, why they left the Protestants. Let us hear now whether the Doctors discoursive power were sober, when he reel'd into such an answer.

First, he willfully puts a wrong meaning upon those words false Fundamentals, as if by them I meant things which we onely, not they, hold for Fundamentals; and then overthrows me most powerfully by showing (as he easily might) that he and his Friends say not but that we prest them to believe false Fundamentals, in this sense, that is such things as we held Fundamentals: whereas '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, &c.) that I meant such points as they accounted Fundamentals. And when he hath [Page 62] thus voluntarily mistaken me, he tailes against me that I affirm things without the least shadow and ground of truth, and that I play foul play. The Reader will quick­ly discern how meanly Dr. H. is skill'd in the game of reason; though in that of citations, where he can both shuffle and cut, that is, both alledge and explicate them, with Id ests, as he pleases, he can pack the cards hand­somly, and show more crafty tricks than ever did Hocus Pocus. And if any after all this can think I have wrong'd Mr. H. in affirming he is a weak reasoner, himself shall ber ample testimony to this truth in the following Para­graph.

He slily touches at my true meaning of Fundamen­tals there, and tells us that false Fundamentals is a con­tradiction in adjecto. Grant it, who ever affirmed that Fundamentals could be false? my words were onely that Dr. H. and his Friends would not say that our Church prest them to believe false Fundamentals. Is it any wrong to them, or foule play in S. W. to affirm that Dr. H. and his Friends will not speak a contradiction? Himself (such is his humility) sayes it is; affirming here, that when S. W. undertakes for him and his Friends, that they will not say that the Romanists have prest them to believe false Fundamentals, his words are not intelligible sense (for the following words, or else they have no degree of truth in them relate to the other acception of Fundamental already sopoken of) so that according to Dr. H. it is not intelligi­ble sense to undertake for him and his Friends, that they should not speak contradictions. Is this a sober discour­se, which falls reelingly to the Ground of it self, when none pushes it? or was it a friendly part to involve his Friends in his own wise predicament?

And now can any man imagine, that when I said Dr. H. and his Friends acknowledge ours a true Church, there should be any difficulty in the sense of those words, or that [Page 63] I should impose upon them that they held our Church not to have erred? yet this Doctor, who alwayes stum­bles most in the plainest way, will needs quibble in the word true, and S. W. must bear the blame for grossely equivocating: whereas the sense was obvious enough to every child, as the words before cited will inform the Reader, that I meant them of the true nature of a Church; which since they acknowledged ours to have, I argued hence, that they must not say we held false Fundamentals, that is, such as they account Fundamentals: for since a Church cannot be a Church, but by Fundamental points of Faith, and Faith must not be false, it follows that a falshood in Fundamental destroyes the very Being of a Church. This being so, I shall beg Dr. H's pardon if I ca­techize him a litle in point of reason (in which his Cause makes him a meer Cathecumenus) and ask him how he can hold ours to have even the true nature of a Church, since he hold that which she esteems as her Fundamental of Fundamentals, and that upon which as her sole certain Ground she builds all her Faith, to wit her infallible Au­thority, to be false & erroneous? If the sole Authority up­on which immeditately she builds all Faith, be a ruinous falshood, she can have no true Faith of any Article, & con­sequently can have no Faith at all, nor be a true Church, since a Church cannot survive the destruction of Faith. But their ambition to honour their Nag's-head Bishops with the shadow of a Mission from our Church, makes them kindly speak non sense to do her a seeming courtesy for their own interest. I know he tells us here in general termes (Answ. p. 15.) that she is not unchurch't, because she holds the true Foundation layd by Christ, but offends by enlarging and superadding; but he must show why the Catholicks, who hold no point of Faith, but solely upon their Churche's infallibility, if thar Ground be false (that is be none) as he sayes, can hold any thing at all as of [Page 64] Faith, that is, have any Faith at all: at least how they can have Certainty of any point of Faith, or the written word of God, if the sole-certain Rule of Faith, by which onely they are assured of all those, were taken sometimes in a lie; to wit while it recommended to them those su­peradditions they account false, received in the same te­nour as the rest from the hands of our immediate Fore­fathers.

But let us follow Dr. H. who goes jogging forward, but still rides (as his ill fortune is) beside the saddle To points which they accounted fundamental, I counterpos'd tolerable ones, that is such as they esteemed not-fundamen­tal, which I therefore call'd tolerable, because they ac­count these neither to touch the Foundation of Faith, as building or destroying; such as he acknowledged in the fore-going Paragraph our pretended super additions to be, saying that the dross doth not annibilate the Gold. It being therefore plain that falshoods which are not in fun­damentals, & so unconsistent with the essence of a Church, must be in things not-fundamental, and therefore consi­stent with the nature of a Church, that is tolerable, if ta­ken in themselves; he neglects to take notice of them as they are in themselves, (that is such, as their admission ruines not Faith, nor the essence of a Church) and sayes the pressing them upon them is intolerable, and not ad­mittable without hypocrisy, or sin against conscience; and why? because they believe them not I ask, had they a demonstration they were false? if so, then let them pro­duce it, and if it bear test, I shall grant them innocent; if not, then since nothing else can oblige the Vnd [...]rstanding but the foresaid Evidence, their pretended obligation in Conscience to disaccept them is convinc't to spring from weakness of passion, not from force of reason.

I added, that those points more deserved the Church should command their obseruance, than Copes or Surpli­ces, [Page 65] &c. And though Mr. H. knowes very well, that one of those points was the fundamental Ground of all Faith in the Church they left, and Copes &c. but things indif­ferent, yet by a cheap supposal that all is false which we hold, he can deny that they are more deserving our Church should command their observance: and so carries the cause clear. He addes Answ. p. 16. that they weightier the importance of the things commanded is, the more intolerahle is the pressure of imposing them: and makes disobedience greater in things indifferent. Whereas surely the Gover­nours are more highly obliged to command the obser­vance of that on which they hold Faith to be built, than all the rest put together. Is it a greater obstinacy to deny a Governour taxes, than to rebell absolutely against him? the Doctor's Logick sayes it is; since obstinacy, accor­ding to him, is greater in resisting commands in things ind [...]fferent. Especially if the Rebel please to pretend, that the urging his submission to that Authority is an intole­rable pressure, Mr. H. here acquits him without more adoe. But to return; since it was our Churche's greater obligation to command their observance of those points, and the holding of such points was not deemed then by them destructive to Faith, but on the other side known by reason of their pretended importance to be in an high degree damnable to themselves and others, if they hap't to be mistaken, no less than most palpable and 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 remaines still the Fundamental one, that he [Page 66] hath said nothing at all to the point of reason in it, but onely mistaken each particular line of it. I alledged as my reason why they dealt not seriously against their own De­sertours, ‘because no colourable pretence could possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us, but the very same would hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them.’ This proved ad hominem thus; because the Protestants acknowledge the points deny'd by both to be tolerable, that is such as could con­sist with Faith and a Church; but, with this disadvan­tage on the Protestants side, that the points they de­ny'd being of more importance, more deserved our Church should command their observance. Now e­very one sees that the proper Answer to his Discourse is to specialize some plea for themselves, which will not as well excuse their Desertours: The Doctor al­ledges none, nor goes about to alledge any; but as if he were dividing his Text, playes upon my words in particular, neglecting the import of them altoge­ther.

He sayes indeed it is against their conscience to ad­mit those other super additionary points; the same say the Puritans, of Copes, Surplices, and Organs. The Doctor will object that they are indifferent, and stight matters, and therefore it is a greater disobedience not to admit them; they will answer that Surplices are ragges of Rome, that Organs are Babylonish Bag­pipes, and all the rest scandalous, and superstitious inventions: Still they are equall in their pleas Nay, if a Socinian deny Christ to be God, and pretend, as doubtless he will, with as much seriouness as Mr. H. that he cannot but sin against Conscience, if he think otherwise, and therefore '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 joynt­ly [Page 67] with his own, that is, hath said no more in his own ex­cuse than the Socinian may for his. Again, if Dr. H or his Church press upon the Socinian the belief of Christ's Divinity upon this ground, that it is a point of most weigh­ty importance; he presently answers the Doctor with his own words, that the weightier the importance of the things commanded are, the more intolerable is the pressu­re of imposing them. And so in stead of impugning, Dr. H. hath made good S. W's words, that they can alled­ge no colourable pretence which may not be alledged by the other Sects.

What if we should adde that the Church they left had been in long possession of the belief of Infallibility, and so proceeded upon these Grounds that her Faith was cer­tain when she prest those points upon them; but they confess their unce [...]t [...]in, and could proceed upon no better then probable Grounds when they prest any thing upon their Desertours? is there not a palbable difference put between the pretended Authorities of imposing points to be held, in us and them? and a greater danger of disac­cepting ours in them, than theirs in the Puritans? If they erred, onely a confest probability stood against them, which gave them just licence to dissent, if they had a pro­bable reason that the admission of those points was bad; since nothing but absolute Evidence pretended could even pretend to oblige their Vnderstandings to assent to them: if you erred, a pre acknowledg'd Infallibility strengthen'd by a long Possession, asserted by the attestation of Tra­dition, and many other motives stood against you, so that nothing but most palpable, undeniable, and rigorous Evidence could possibly disoblige your first Reformers from their ancient belief, or oblige them to this new one. If the Puritans erred, since they were onely ornaments and Rituals they refused to admit, the utmost harm which could accrue by their non-admission of them was termi­nated [Page 68] in the want of exren decency onely, and held by the very Authority which imposed them, to be but indif­ferent, and far from being essentially-destructive to a Church. But if you or your first Reformes chanc't to erre, (which the bare probability of your Faith confess't by your selves, in this case makes more than likely (then your contrary position ruin'd all Faith and Government, since the Church you disobey'd held no other Ground of Faith or Church Government, save onely those you re [...]ected and disacknowledg'd, to wit, her own Infallibility, and the Popes Authority. Again, if you happen'd to be in the wrong, and that indeed there was no other, either Church Government, or Ground of Faith, than these; then how wickeldy desperate to your own soules, and universally destructive to all man-kind, and their means of attaining eternal bliss, must your disclaiming and pub­likely, renouncing both these be? none of which can be objected to the Puritanes by you. So evidently true were my words, that ‘no colourable pretence can possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us, but the same will hold as firm, nay much firmer, for other Sects why they left them.’Yet I doubt not but the Do­ctor will after all this (as he does here (Answ. p. 16.) ap­plaud his own victory with a triumphant Epiphonema, and say that S. W. his probations are beyond all measu­re improbable, when himself had not said a word to the intent of the discourse, but onely play'd mistakingly and non-sensically upon some particular words: Yet when he hath done, like a tender hearted man, he pittyes himself again, that he should so unnecessarily insist upon it Tru­ly so do I pitty him, or any man else who takes much pains to no purpose; though I pitty more the Reader, who can imagine any credence is to be given to so weak a Writer.

[Page 69] He ends his Answer to my Introduction with telling the Reader, that I have with no shew of Iustice suggested his tediousness in things acknowledged. Whereas almost all his first Chapter, and third, together with those where he proves the Pope not Head of the Church, from the title of converting England, or Concession of our Kings, as also almost all his narrative Confession of his Schism, with many other scatter'd discourses, are things acknow­ledg'd by both parties, and were very tedious and dull to me. What he addes, that he will not disturb me when I speak truth, unless he shall discern some part of his ar­guing concern'd, is a very pretty jest; intimating that he stands in preparation of mind to oppose even Truth it self, if it stand in his way, or his arguing be concern'd in it, and not vindicated in his former Reply. A sincere person! Hov­ver, let him onely grant that what he vindicates not, but leaves untouch't, is Truth, and we shall without difficul­ty strike up a bargain.

Sect. 8.
How Dr. H. prevaricates from the Question by stating it wrong. His powerfull way of arguing by Ifs, and how he defends himself for mincing the Fathers words

THe Fathers alledged by Mr. H. attested that no just cause could be given of Schism; whence he inferres ( of Schism, p. 10.) that the causes and motives of Schism are not worth producing, or heeding in this controversy. The Catholick Gentleman and S. W. both exprest their dislike of this inference; the Doctor pretends to vindi­cate the [...] of it, as he pedantically calls it, and re­ferres me to his Reply for his reasons: to which I shall both give a solution, and at once lay open the nature of [Page 70] S [...]hism, and the manner in which they ought to controvert it, I mean as far as it can have any show of bearing con­troversy.

Schism then (which we joyntly acknowledge a vice of the first magnitude) if taken in it's primary signification, to which our circumstances determine it, includes for it's genus or material part a division, or act of dividing; the specifical difference gives it a reference to the Eccle­siastical Government instituted by Christ. Now our great Masters of Moral Divinity assure us, that no action is in it self good or bad, but as it conduces to or averts from the attaining one's last end; since all things else have the nature of meanes onely in order to the attainment of that, and consequently the esteem of their goodness or bad­ness is built upon their alliance to that order. Whence follows that there is no action in the world, not kil­ling one's own Son, nor dividing from any Government whatsoever, in it self so bad, but might be done, could there be assigned motives and reasons, truly represen­ting it better to attempt it. Now our all-wise God hath ordered things so providently for the peace and good of his Church, that it is impossible any cause or motive can be truly imagin'd sufficient to justify the rejecting it's Government; since neither any private injury is compa­rable to such an universal good, nor can it happen that any miscarriage can be so publick as to force it's renoun­cing: for seeing our B. Saviour made but one Church, and that to continue for ever, if any cause were sufficient to break from that one Church, there would be a just and sufficient cause to be of no Church, which is against the Protestants own tenet, and makes them so desirous to pre­tend a descent from ours. Wherefore it remains impos­sible, that those who acknowledg the Churche's Govern­ment to have bin instituted by Christ, should pretend to any just cause to separate from it, but they ought to be­have [Page 71] themselves passively, in case of an injury received, not actively renouncing that Government, or erecting an­other against it.

Notwithstanding all this yet it may happen sometimes that (as no Authority is or can be so sacred & inviolable, but passion can make men dislike it) some company of men may disacknowledge the Authority instituted by Christ, to have come from him, alledging for the rea­son and motive of their renouncing it, that it is an usur­pation, which they also pretend to prove by arguments drawn either from Reason or Testimonies. Now these men's plea might take place, if it were possible they should produce absolute evidence, and such as in it's own force obliges the understanding to assent, notwithstanding the contrary motives which retard it: and without pre­tending such a rigorous Evidence, it were madness to ha­zard an error in abusiness of such main concernment both to the Church, mankind, and their own Souls, as it would necessarily be, if that fact of theirs happen'd to be Schis­matical.

Now then let us see, whether my Adversaries inference be good, that, because Schism can have no just causes for it's parents, therefore Dr. H. in treating a Controversie of Schism, ought not to heed or produce the causes or mo­tives of it. Indeed if he would grant himself and his Friends to be Schismaticks; then it were to no purpose for him to alledge causes and motives, since all men know that no just cause can be possibly alledged for Schism: but if he does an external act which hath the resemblance or show of Schism, and nevertheless will defend himself to be no Schismatick, he must give account why he does that action, and shew that that action is not truly Schism; which cannot be done without discussing reasons and mo­tives, if common practise teach us any thing. Will any man endeavour to turn one out of possession lawfully, [Page 72] without a plea, or produce a plea without either any mo­tive or reason in it? Iustly therefore did the Catholick Gentleman affirme it to be a pure contradiction: for that a confest breach under debate should be concluded to have no just causes, that is to be indeed Schismatical; or, to ha­ve just causes, that is to be a self enfranchisment, without producing & examining any causes, is a perfect implicancy.

Nor will his instance ( Reply p. 5. 6.) of a seditious per­son or Rebell, secure him at all: for as it is true that if it be known that he confesses himself a Rebel, there is no plea­ding of causes, (as Dr. H. well sayes) to justify his Re­bellion; yet as long as he pretends to be no Rebel, so long he is obliged to bring motives and reasons why his action of rising against the Government is not Rebellion, though it be accused and seem to be such.

Now if Dr. H. hath not forgot the title of his book, 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 shew that this a­ction of the Church of England makes not her Schisma­tical nor her Sons Schismaticks. And how this can stand without producing motives, or is not as plain a contradi­ction as ens and non ens, I confess is beyond my under­standing.

In his eighteenth p. he cunningly forges a false state of the question in these words, that it is a matter in question between the Romanists and us, whether the Bishop of Rome had before and at the time of the Reformation any su­preme legal power here, I willingly acknowlege. By which he would perswade the Reader, that he had condescended to a state of the question pretended by us: which is abso­lutely [Page 73] false; for we state the question thus; That, there being at that time an external confessed Government de­rived and in actual possession time out of minde, (abstra­cting from whether it be internally legal or no) whether the pretended Reformers either did then or can now show sufficient reasons of the substracting themselves from obe­dience to it. This is our state of the question, which hath it's whole force (as the Reader may see) in the acknow­ledged external possession. Now Dr. H. would make his Reader believe that the state of the question doth wholly abstract from the external possession, and purely debate the internal right, as if it hung hovering indifferently in the aire to be now first determin'd, without taking notice of the stability and force our tenet had from the long pos­session. And this handsome trick he gentilely put's upon his Readers by those three sly words, I willingly ac­knowledge.

Having thus mistaken voluntarily the state of the que­stion, consequently he imposes upon me that I said, none doubts of the Bishop of Rome's supreme legal power over the Church of England at the time of the Reformation; and then confutes me most palpably with telling me that they doubt it, or make a question of it. Can any man in reason imagin I was ignorant that such was their tenet, since I impugn it in this present controversy, as Schis­matical? yet Dr. H's great reach of wit can by the way, and within a Parenthesis, make such a dolt of S. W. His proof from my words is better then the supposi [...]ion it self: ‘I said, our Church could cast them out, and deny them communion, if they be found to deserve it, being then her Subjects and Children.’ Actually they were under her at that time: if then they could alledge just (that is) evident reasons why they thought her Government an usurpation, then they did not deserve it, and so she could not excommunicate them; if they did not, and yet [Page 74] would subtract themselves from her obedience, then they deserv'd it, and were justly excommunicated. Can any man doubt of this, or impose such a piece of known 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 examin my words which breed his scruple: they are these, as cited in the Marge by himself. ‘That our Church could cast you out, if you be found to de­serve it, being then her Subjects and Children none doubts.’ Here I ask, first, whether he can shew that I speak of any interiour or legal Authority; which if he cannot, '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 Subiects, if they deserv'd it; for this is all my words signify'd, and is so plain of it self, that no man that hath any common sense can make diffi­culty of it.

He tells us p. 19. that the questions is equally and in­differently whether they or the Romanists be guilty of Schism, including also the remorseless Governours in the Romish See. Where he quite mistakes the business: his meaning (as I perceive by his whole procedure, and par­ticularly p. 22. where he sayes, that the Pope ought to clear his title to his pretended power) is, that we should be mutually counter-opponent, and counter-defendants, and each produce proofs, ere we can claim any thing. But he is in a g [...]eat errour: we need no new proofs to convince [Page 75] the lawfulness of our Authority; our plea is provided to our hand before they opposed us, and started the question Possession is all the proofs we need bring, and such a pos­session as had to strengthen it an universal belief that it came from Christ's time, grounded upon the certainty of Oral Tradition; so that we made no question of it (it was a point of our Faith) and therefore need produce no proofs for our affirmative: whereas they, who first que­stion'd this before-unquestionable, and re [...]ected this be­fore-received Authority, must bring reasons why they did so, and proofs why they deemed it usurp't. The que­stion therefore in this pre [...]ent debate devolves to this; whether the proofs Dr. H. produces be convincingly evi­dent against a possession so qualify'd, as is before declared: if they fall short of that force, eo ipso he and his Friends are concluded Schismaticks, for relinquishing without just motives an Authority, whose possession is justly presu­mable to have come from Christ; if they be perfect Evi­dences, then they are excusable, and in their excusableness is terminated the controversy in hand, if we may trust the title of his book, which is A Defence against the excep­t [...]on, of the Romanists, or his own stating the que­st [...]on, of Schism, p. 11. from which he here prevaricates, p. 19.

What follows further, out of their excusableness, a­gainst us, that is, whether we were unjust, usupers, tyran­nical, &c. is another question; for which sequel I would not contend with them, if the premisses could be possibly evinced. However, if we usurp't, it was not lately, but a thousand years agoe: But that our Church shall in that case be schismatical, (as he here sayes) that expression comes out from the mouths and pens of his Friends so weakly and faintly, (the light of nature and common lan­guage of mankind checking them, that the whole is not said to be broken from a part, but a part from the whole) [Page 76] that he must have recourse to the universal obligation of Charity to pretend us such: for we can never be [...]hown even in his supposed case Schismatical against Govern­ment or Vnity in the Church, if no such Vnity can be found, as it cannot in that mould he hath cast Christiani­ty in, by making each Church [...], Independent, or self-govern'd; since there can be no division made, where the things are already many.

After his pretended indifferency of the question, he tells us, that it must not be begg'd on either side, and here­after he complains of me grievously for the same fault I am sorry to see M. H. so ignorant in Logick, that he mistakes the most ordinary things in disputing. Let him know then that a Defendant, as a Defendant, cannot be sayd to beg the question; since it is his office to hold his tenet, which is the thing in controversy, and stick close by it; whatever prejudices or impossibilities are objected, to deny them cōsequent from it, granting those things which he takes to be consistent with it, denying those which he deems inconsistent, unless it be an open evidence; if an ambiguity occur, to distinguish the double sense, and show again which part of the distinction is consistent with it, which otherwise: in all which it is manifest he supposes the truth of the question, and holds fast to it, nor ought he let go that hold til he be non-plust, and the dispute at an end. My part then being the Defendant's (as hath been proved out of the tenth Ground) the Reader may see with how much Logick D. H. complains of me all over, for on­ly holding my tenet; which he calls begging the question. For, however he may pretend to the name of a Defender, yet, since his party begun first to oppose, that is, to object and argue against ours, who at that time quietly held their tenet, '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 [Page 77] improper and abusive of the right notion. Whereas we, who started not the dispute nor begun the opposition, but sate still, have yet a just title to continue in that our po­sture of defence, till the Evidence of their Arguments drive us out of it.

His next complaint is against the Governours in the Romish See, who (if you will trust him) without all cause deny Communion without remorse or relenting, not onely to them, but to many other Churches east and west, north and south, in all parts of the habitable word. And was not this ever the constant practice of God's Church, to Excom­municate all those who renounced either the Govern­ment, or any other point of Faith received from their Forefathers; that is, all Schismaticks and Hereticks; and never to readmit them till they repented their lapse, and did fruits worthy of penance? I grant therefore that the Romish Governours inherit the remorslesness of the fore­going Church, so that if any be found misdeserving in the same manner, in what part soever of the habitable world they live, whether East, West, North, or South, all is one to her; or how many soever they be, Arians, Socinians, Eutychians, Nestorians, Carpocratians, Lutherans, Cal­vinists, Protestants; &c. she values not their number, nor yet their situation: if they grow scabb'd with self opinio­nated novelties, or disobedience, they must be separated from the sounder flock; nor ever be re-admitted, till their repentance hath wrought their cure.

His fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth Paragraphs, which fol­low, lay down for their foundation a very excellent prin­ciple, introduc' [...] with an If; as, If the Church of England (p. 19. l. 22.) be really [...]; If the Bishop of Rome (p. 20. l. 1.) had really no more power and Autho­rity over this Church, than the Bishop of Antioch over Cyprus, that is none at all; In case the Bishop of Rome (p. 21. l. 16.) have no legal Authority over us, &c. and upon [Page 78] this he runs on very confidently a whole leaf and an half, concluding most evidently whatever he pleases in preju­dice of the Pope, none daring to stop his career, or deny his consequences, so great vertue there is in the particle If: onely we may take leave to propose a parallel to it, that as he who intends to dine on larks, & prepares all things necessary, whithout any greater security than, If the s [...]y should fall, may in all likelyhood miss his meal; so in grea­ter probability must Dr. H. fail of his conclusion, which relies upon a conditional If, grounded onely in his own fancy.

He expresses p. 22. much Charity towards the humble members of the Papacy who pray for the peace of the Cae­tholick Church. But if he would consider how litle they think of his Church, under that notion, he would con them litle thanks for their prayers. They never intended to pray for the peacefull a biding of the Protestants where they are, but rather for that salutiferous trouble of com­punction and sorrow of heart, for their disobedience, and pervicacious obstinacy. Yet he will needs be beholding to them for praying for the Protestant Churches peace with the rest, and in courteous requital retains the favorable opinion of Salvation attainable amognst them. But can­not absolve from the guilt of the most culpable Schism the setters up, and maintainers of the partition-wall betwixt us. The Pope, Cardinals, and all the Clergy must bea [...] S. W. company to Hell, that's decreed; S. Paul hath (doubt less) long a goe pronounced sentence against them also.

He would clear himself in the next place for mincing the Father's words. S. Austin affirmed, non esse quic­quam gravius Schismate; he render'd it, scarce any so great. Now S. W. knowing how willing he was to seek evasions to palliate Schism by pretence of some greater sin (as he does most amply, of Schism, cap. 2. part. 8.) and [Page 79] therefore not willing to grant him any the least startin­hole, exprest by the way his dislike of his mincing the absolute not, with scarce. But as Mr. H's good fortune would have it, his Genius led him into this profitable mistake, as to translate gravius, so great; and by the jumbling of these two together he hath compounded an excuse, alledging that scarce any is so great, is fully as much (or more comprehensive) than none greater. Where­as first it is manifest that non esse quicquam gravius, is most obviously and easily render'd, there is nothing grea­ter: and if a qualifying expression be made use of in stead of an absolute one, S W. had good reason to be jealous of it, specially coming from Dr. H. Next the reasons he alledges to make good the equivalence of the sense, that there may possibly be many crimes as great, though no one were supposed greater, is false; Moral Science assuring us that no two kinds of vices are equall Thirdly, if Dr. H. please to rub up afresh his forgotten Logick, he will find that with S. Austin's proposition, that none is greater, it cannot stand that one is greater, since they are contradictories; but with his proposition, that scarce any is so great, it vell stands, that one, or some few, may be greater: Therefore it is manifest that he min­ced S. Austin. Lastly, whereas he sayes he assumed not to affirm more than his Authorities did induce, that there was none greater, is the strangest lapse of all: before he onely minc'd the words non est quicquam gravius, now they have totally lost their signification; since he tells us his Authorities did not induce that there was none grea­ter; which is directly contrary to the words cited. This is the result of Dr. H's deliberate thoughts, apply'd to remedy his Disarmer's too great hast: Me thinks ano­ther man in another cause might have done better ex tem­pore.

I took notice by the way, with a glance of a parenthe­sis, [Page 80] that he mitigated S. Irenaeus his words, Nulla ab eis tanta fieri potest correptio, quanta est schismatis perni­cies, by rendring the absolute tenour of them, Nulla po­test, &c. by the softer language of, It is very hard if not impossible, to receive such an injury from the Governours, &c. To clear himself, he asks me first why I took no notice of his ill rendring Schismatis pernicies. I answer, that it is not necessary to score up all his faults; it suffi­ces to note what I conceived most needfull. Next, he ex­cuses himself by telling us that he set down the Latin pun­ctually, and so left it not possible to impose on any that un­derstood that. I answer, that my intent in noting it was, that he should not even impose on those who understand English onely, and make up the greater part of Readers, Thirdly, he sayes he was carefull not to goe beyond the li­mits of the testimonies. I grant it, and onely find fault that he was over-carefull, so as to fall short of their just sense. Fourthly, he tells us that [...], both in Scri­pture and other Authours, is render'd hard or difficult. Which evasion is nothing, unless he had this testimony out of Irenaeus in Greek, as his words seem willing under­hand to make the Reader believe: which if he have, I am sure he hath seen more than other men, though very cu­rious, could ever hear of.

These are his evasions: let us see what plain reason will say against them: It is very hard, if not impossible, to re­ceive such an iniury sufficient to excuse Schism, evidently is consistent with this sense, that, it is doubtfull whether some few injuries may not be sufficient for that end; and then if the some of these last words doe not mitigate the absolute, nulla potest, there can be none, I confess I have lost my reason. To omit that the sense of his translation or paraphrase few or none, &c. leaves room for the rea­sonableness of Schism, since it admits a possibility for Schism, in case of some injury received, to be excusable. [Page 81] In a word, I onely affirmed ( Schism Disarm'd, p. 3.) that he seem'd something chary in those expressions, which I am sure the Reader will think I have made good; him­self acknowledging here (p. 24. l. 11.) that his expression was cautious, and the fact of mincing the words being e­vident: As for his intention, if the Reader wil believe him, he assures him ( Answ. p. 18.) it was out of tender­ness to us; so that we must bear the blame of his feeble paraphrase, and be beholding to him to boot. Timeo Da­naos, & dona ferentes. Howsoever, since it was our for­tune to have the intention of a courtesy thrust upon us, we thank him for it, but request him to do us no more such favours for the future, as to mince the Fathers words for our sakes; they will earn a return of greater gratitude from his own cause, which stands in need of such kind­nesses.

My third whisper (as he calls it) which he will needs have speak aloud to his discredit, is that he render'd S. Au­stin's words à communione orbis terrarum, from the Vni­versal or truly Catholick Church of Christ; as if he we­re afraid lest God's Church might perhaps be thought untruly Catholick. Of which he sayes the reasons is visi­ble, because the Church of Rome is by her Advocates sty­led the Catholick Church. But do not others call her so besides her own Advocates? do not even our very ene­myes (forced thereunto by custome, which makes words proper) give us that appellation, unless design cross their free and natural expression? Ask in London where a Catholick lives, and see whether they will show you the house of a Roman Catholick, or no. Should a Pur­suivant meet Dr. H. and ask him if he were a Catholick, I doubt not but his answer would be negative, unless de­sign against us made him deliver himself otherwise. Sin­ce then we onely have nomen Catholicum obtentum & pos­sessum, which S. Austin (contra Epist. Fund. cap. 4.) [Page 82] holds to be a note of the Church, it is a wrong to that ho­ly Doctor, to put upon him in your translation the un­necessary addition of truly, to Catholick; seing that ac­cording to him, no Church can be universally called such, which is not truly such. The summe then of Dr. H's su­pererogating truly, is; that though all the world in their free expressions call us onely Catholicks, (that is, sons of the Catholick Church) yet all speak untruly, but him­self and a few of his brethren; who also speak truly onely then, when it is their turn to dispute against us. Yet he tells us, if we will believe him, that certainly our Church is not such in the notion S. Austin speaks: though if we should ask him what ground he hath for his certainty, he must answer that he hath none that is certain, but onely a probability; for I conceive he hath no better ground for that than he hath for his Faith.

Thus Dr. H. ends his defence from my three Whi­spers, as he calls them, though I hope by this time they speak loud and plain enough to every Reader that he was too chary in his expressions, which was all I objected. In the close he pleases to honour me, by making me Confes­sour of his secretest and deepest reservation: but truly (though I pretend not to so high an office) unless he co­mes with hearty sorrow for these faults without cloaking them, and gives me good hopes of his future amendment, he is never likely to obtain absolution.

The Catholick Gentleman noted by the way, that Dr. H. slightly past over the distinction between Heresy and Schism, which was necessary to be exprest in that place, where the matter of the futurework was to be deter­mined, that is, what Schism he was chiefly to treat of. Now in this Book entitled their defence he ought to state the matter so, as to treat of that chiefly which is chiefly ob­jected: wherefore since he cannot but know that a Schism coming from an Heresy is that which is more charged [Page 83] upon them, both as greater crime, and as the cause and origin of the other Schism of onely disobedience, he ought to have premised this, and let his Reader have known that all Heresy is Schism; at least in a place where he purpose­ly treats of the notion of Schism, it was fitting to treat it abstractedly from the heretical one, and that of bare dis­obedience, (both which are objected, though the former much more) and not speak of it as distinguish't from he­resy, as professedly here he does, of Schism chap. 2. par. 1. so laying wrong grounds to his future discourse, by omit­ting and excluding from it the principal Schism objected, and so treating Schism maimedly, or rather onely one branch of it. Now his first excuse why he past it over so sl [...]ghtly (onely naming the word distinguish't, yet trea­ting no distinction there,) is that he meddled not with it at all, Reply p. 8. l. [...]0. as if this made not the fault greater, not to meddle with that which was in a manner soley im­portant in that place, and most pertinent to his ensuing T [...]eatise. His next is, that his method led him to it, to treat of it, Chap. 8. whereat 'ts evidently most impertinent and unmethodical to treat of Schism against Faith under the head of Schism against mutual Charity: and besides, me­thod gives, that we must put the definitions before we treat of the particularities. I am sorry to see that his con­fusion for method's sake, the non-sense of his first book is entail'd upon these also; and that that Dish in the Sta­tioners bill of fare must be cook't up again here by Mr. H. to give the Reader a second surfeit.

Sect. 9.
How Dr. H. defends his famous Criticism about the Hith pael-like verbe [...] with ten several mistakes of his Accidence.

HIs second Section presents us with the first Dish in the Stationer's bill of fare, served up to the table cover'd; but with so many pittiful evasions, and mistakes, as may serve perhaps to give the Reader a banquet of mirth. But I shall treat it seriously.

His first mistake is general, and slips over the whole question. Our controversy is whether either [...] or [...] have a reciprocal signification upon a Grammati­cal account, from the notation of the form and termination of the word, as he declares himsel ( of Shism, p. 13.) to mean of [...] at least: now he, to evade, quite for­sakes his formely-declared intent, and recurres for his re­fuge to the sense of the word taken from the thing signi­fy'd, and affix't to it by Ecclesiastical use, or present cir­cumstances, not to what the word in it self requires, nor to what it is beholden to Grammar for.

His second mistake (which I pardon'd him before) is that [...] comes from the active [...], since Grammarians use to derive that verbal from the second person of the preterperfect tense passive.

His third mistake (or rather voluntary evasion) is, that, whereas he was accused for misunderstanding the nature of a Conjugation, in saying that a Greek passive for want of conjugations was design'd to supply another signification, he flies off, and sayes he mean't it of such as the Hebrew Grammars call thus: as if he should say that Greek verbs want Hebrew Conjugations. To omit that the Conju­gations in Hebrew are improperly call'd such, shall be shown presently.

[Page 85] His fourth mistake is, that he makes account it is a pro­priety to express Conjugations to be flexions and varia­tions both of the signification and first syllable, as the He­brew calls Conjugations: for to state the matter indiffe­rently (though the contrary use of the word, in both La­tin and Greek, out-sound, and so make improper the dif­ferent use of it in Hebrew) let us abstract from all the three, nay from all languages, and upon Grammatical principles put a difference between Voyces and Conjuga­tions, no other can be imagin'd than this, that a Voyce re­lates to the signification, a Conjugation to a diversity in some letter or syllable. This being so, that expression is proper which signifyes each in it's own propriety and di­stinction, not both at once, blended in a confusion. Impro­perly therefore in Hebrew are they called Conjugations; and more properly did S. W. affirm that in Hebrew, Voy­ces and Coniugations were jumbled, as the Doctor's words now cited justify.

His fifth mistake is, that the Printer's evident errour in putting eight votes for eight voyces, is the unconceivable lap­se (as hee alls it) of S. W. whereas no man that was no bet­ter than half blind, could possibly fall into such a toyish piece of oversight, since the wrong word votes is put once onely, but the right word voyces twice, so immediately next it, that it could not possibly leave it undiscover'd; to wit, three lines before it, and again three lines after it. Yet this hard riddle hath cost the good Doctor a great deal of paines, for he tells us here ( Answ. p. 27.) he cannot by any enquiry discover that any Grammariam hath styled them eight votes. What a wise task it was to consult all the multitude of Grammars extant for such a trifle, which was just at his nose? and what a miserable life does he lead in turning over leaves daily to so litle purpose? But every thing delights most in it's own Element.

His sixth mistake is, his denial that there are more Con­jugations [Page 86] in the Greek, than in the Hebrew. Now in He­brew none imagine more than eight, and this forgetfull Adversary of mine was fit to defend in the foregoing page that there might be but foure; whereas honest Cambden will inform him that in Greek, Conjugationes [...] sunt tredecim, sex barytonorum, tres contractorum, qua­tuor Verborum in [...]: now in our Country thirteen are more than eight; but Dr. H. thinks otherwise. His rea­son why they are more properly such in Hebrew, because there the variation is both in the signification and the first syllable is already shown to be the reason why they are improperly called Conjugations, and rather Voyces; which is yet made plainer by that which follows in the Doctor ( Answ. p. 27. 28.) that one and the same Verb goes through all the Coniugations in Hebrew. For since it was never pretended that the word Conjugation is impro­perly termed such in Latin and Greek, where it is distin­guish't from a Voyce, and yet in both those languages no verb runs through all the Conjugations, but through Voi­ces onely; it is manifest that, if theirs be proper, the notion of Conjugation in Hebrew is improper.

His seventh mistake is ( Answ. p. 28.) that all neutro­passives are of the active voice; of which he is so confi­dent, that he tells me every School-boy knows it: sure these School-boys must have Dr. H. for their School-master. I am sure Will. Lilly would have whipt his Schol­lars for being ignorant of their As in praesenti, had they af­firmed it; where they might have read, and Dr. H. too, the Rule, Neutropassivum sic praeteritum sibi format, &c. instancing in Gaudeo, fido, audeo, fio, soleo, moereo, which if he account actives from their manner of flection, (be­sides his old errour in the nature of a voice) he may take notice that their preterperfect, from which more tenses are formed than from the present, is altogether passive; if from their sense, let him tell me what Gau­deor, [Page 87] fior, &c. would signify if made passives.

His eighth mistake is that sto partakes not of a passive sense: it must have then, according to him, a sense per­fectly and totally active; (for no Latine Verbs can have any sense but what is either Active or Passive or compoun­ded of these, except some few which signify Being) if so, then seeing it ends in o [...], why should it not be an active forming a passive in or; for so Mr. Lilly teaches his boyes, that if it cannot take r '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) then he again makes it partake of a passive sense, since to signify an action as received in the agent, is to signify an action mixt with a passion, for that reception is such. In a word, those Verbs which signify action (or in manner of an action) of one thing upon another, are actives; those that signify the reception of it in the other, are passives, and formed of these actives; those that signify an action (or in manner of an action) of the same thing upon it self, partake of both, and are neu­ters; and hence they may be render'd either actively, or passively, I stand, or, I am standing, I run, or, I am running, &c. though the difference and degrees of expres­sing this reciprocalness be more visible in some, than in others, according as their significatum is either a proper­ly-called action including motion, or else the manner one­ly of signifying imitates the perfecter active.

Pardon me, Reader, it is for Dr. H's sake, not thine, that I make this Grammatical lecture, who in his former book-had onely forgot his Accidence, but in this seems absolutely to have renounced it. Yet these are the excep­tions which, in defiance of all Grammar, he takes against me, and then triumphantly insult's, and would make the Reader believe that he omits to enumerate others the like (weightier you may be sure) partly to preserve his gra­ty, [Page 88] partly because it were unreconcileable with common Compassion. Well; S W. may have many Adversaries, but never shall he meet with so tender-hearted a man, who is mightily afraid to hurt him, when he never co­mes near touching him. If he drew any bloud, I am sure poor Priscian, Lilly and Cambden felt the smart.

His ninth mistake (which he calls his answer to my principal scruple, but indeed is his own principal errour) is his instancing in [...], for paral­lels of [...], and to be of the nature of Hithpael. I an­swer, not onely these he alledges, but also that the second persons of the imperative mood in all Verbs signifying an action indifferently performable by himself or another, may by the circumstances come to signify an action upon himself; yet this is not to be of the nature of Hith-pael, which hath this always of its own Grammatical force, without being beholding to circumstances. Again, the na­ture of Hith pael is to signify expressely as much as two words in Latin or Greek, as I instanced in Schism Dis­arm'd, and so is perfectly and essentially reciprocal; these pretended parallels come from perfect actives, which sig­nify no more reciprocalness than amo and cognosco, if taken in themselves, and abstracted from circumstances. But his main errour is, that he runs to the quality of the thing signify'd, from the quality of the word upon the ac­count of the Grammatical notation: which was the sole design of this Critical discourse, and formerly his intent, till he was frighted from it. I grant therefore that the Ec­clesiastical use and S. Iude rightly take a Schismatick for one who [...], divides himself from the Church; but can he show me that the Church or S. Iude or any, except himself, tell us that this kind of reciprocal signification accrues to that word by any Grammatical observation from the passiue [...]; or that taken in it's own nature it is not indifferent to signify, I am cut by [Page 69] another, as, by my self, till some circumstance determine it? or can any show, that [...] (and so of the rest) is in it's own passive nature of any farther signification, than barely I am saved, leaving it to be determin'd by o­ther words, whether by my self, or some other; that is ha­ving of it self no reciprocal sense? Vnless he can show this, still the Doctor of Divinity hath forgot his Accidence, and the first Dish in the bill of Fare (should I suffer it) would be put again upon record: but I will chide the liquorish Stationer, and bid him have som mercy on Dr. H. who hath so much Compassion upon S. W.

His tenth mistake ( Answ. p. 29.) spent in sounding my Deep subtlety (as he calls it) is much-what of the same strain. The word Schismatick in the Ecclesiastical use hath for it's total signification one who is divided voluntarily (by himself) from the Church; and consequently [...], if the circumstances apply it's native indifferency to that kind of sense, must signify) I am divided voluntarily (or by my self) from the Church. Now to speak of the word it self, it neither signifies I am divided voluntarily, nor yet, I am divided from another thing, ( [...] signifies that) much less, I am divided by my self from the Church; but the circumstances or use give all these, and make the acception of the word such: for a breach from the Church being inexcusable, that is sinful, must be vo­luntary; and because in all divisions when one part bears a small proportion to the other, that part is said to be di­vided from it, therefore to schismatize is to divide him­self voluntarily from the Church. All this the use of the word yields; and had Dr. H. onely stood to this, he had found no opposition from S. W. but saved his credit at least for Grammatical skill: but because he would deduce it by criticizing Grammatically, I would let him see what consequence follow'd of it; to wit, that since [...] was (as he said) of the nature of Hith-pael, and signify'd reci­procal [Page 90] action on himself, himself, the Schismatick, is the thing divided; now the said [...] being a Verb simple, and wanting an [...] to make it signify a dividing from another, in Dr. H's critical rigour it must make the poor Schismatick be cut in two: and I much fear that all the Grammatical plaster Dr., H's art can make, will not co­ver much less cure the wound himself would needs give himself, by meddling too much with those edg'd tools of Criticisms.

Not to charge him with more mistakes, (ten are enough for him to fall into about one word) I would know why he left my [...]nth page unanswer'd, which most concern'd the point. To which had he apply'd his mistaking facul­ty, I doubt not but we might have had a douzen, if not thirteen for good measure.

Thus much of Dr. H's Hith-pael like Verb [...] and his eagle-ey'd Criticism upon it, which wil make his fame long-lived amongst all future Grammarians. What follow in the next Paragraph, granting his clients to be Schismaticks, if I can prove their voluntary recession from us, is already prov'd by his own clear confession, Schism Disarm'd, p. 279. where the Reader may see it manife­sted plainly; my patience is not transcription-proof (like Dr. H's) to stand repeating it here. But I know he will deny his words in one place or the other, as he does more than once in this Treatise of his second thoughts.

He told us, chap. 2. p. 3. that Governours, being men, may possibly erre, and excommunicate the innocent; I an­swered, that unless he could evidence an immunity from errour in the Governed, as well as pretend a liableness in the Governours, the opinion of right ought to stand on the Governours side, and that a probable motive could not suf­ficiently warrant the Subiects to revolt; giving my rea­sons for it. Now the proper reply to the import of my Answer had been to stand stoutly to it, that their motiues [Page 91] for renouncing that Authority were in their own nature more than probable, and concluded demonstratively that it was an usurpation. But he is horribly afraid of answe­ring positively to that point: when any Reason appeares, he either leaps out of the lists all afrighted, or else hides himself in words. His Answer is, ( Answ. p. 30.) that this cannot be appliable to the business without begging the principal question. So that I must be the opponent, that's concluded, let reason and art say what they will. I ask, was not my answer pertinent to his words, the Gover­nours might erre, which was my onely business at that time? If so, then it was most absurd in him to ramble from one end of the Controversy to the other, with his volun­tary and crude affirmations, that the Pope in King Hen­ry's time was not de jure, in Q. Elizabeth's neither de iu­re nor de facto Governour. May not any Rebel say the same, pretend no Right in the Governour, and say truly, that he was not actually and de facto under him, when he had renounced his Authority, and raised an Army a­gainst him? He tells us moreover upon his honest word, if we will believe him, that the King and Bishops here had the supreme power under Christ, to reiect the Pope's Au­thority; that the Pope's power was usurp't, &c. and then hiding his head under these thin leaves, he concludes him­self perfectly safe till we make it appear that we were Go­vernours, and they faulty. So that by the Doctor's Lo­gick, a boy, though undoubtedly held the son of such a Father, may not be whip't by him for disobedience, as long as the boy can call his mother whore, and deny himself to be his Son; unless the Father make it first ap­pear that he is his Child. Till you first renounced the Au­thority of our Supreme Governour (let it be when it will) you were under him, and held his Children and Subjects; your disobedience is most notorious, and confest and that not a meer disacceptance of his commands, but disallow­ance [Page 92] of his Authority: yet as long as you can deny it, and say the Roman-Church (your then-Mother) was a strum­pet, and had erred in Faith, she may not punish nor ex­communicate you, without first making it appear you are her Children. A solid piece of reason!

Observe, Reader, that Dr. H. in all these raw affirma­tions of his, that not begg'd the question a jot, although he be the opponent; '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 Schismatick in rejecting an Authority for so ma­ny Ages acknowledg'd certain, upon slight and phanta­stical Grounds.

One piece of wit I must not omit, because I have heard more than one of Dr. H's Friends misled by it. The Doctor affirms here ( Answ p. 30. l. 14.) that the Pope's Autho­rity was first cast off by Papists. 'Tis strange, that the sa­me men who nominate us Papists for onely acknowled­ging the Pop's Authority, should call them also Papists who disacknowledge it. But perhaps he means they we­re Roman-Catholicks; if so, then let me ask, does he mean that they were of our Profession ere they renounc't it? so was every one that turned Knave or Rebel, an ho­nest man and true Subject formely, else he had never turn'd so, but ever been so: must then Knaves and Rebels impu­te knavery and rebellion to honest men and true Subjects, and say, it was they who first began those Vices? or does he mean perhaps that they remain'd Catholicks after the renouncing it? If his mistake be there, he may right it by taking notice, that such a renouncing is an Act of Schism involving heresy, by corenouncing the Rule of Faith. After this renouncing therefore, they were Schis­maticks, and Hereticks, not Catholicks, and what­ever [Page 93] tenets they may be pretended ro retain still, were not now Faith but Opinion onely; the sole certain Ground of Faith, Oral Tradition, being abandon'd and rejected: unless the Doctor will say that they had yet Catholick Faith in them, who denyed all the ground of Catholick Faith; and then indeed I shall not refuse to give them lea­ve to hold them without Ground, and rank them in Dr. H's Predicament of Probablists.

Sect. 10.
Dr. H's plea of a weak conscience common to the Pro­stants and any malefactour. Thirteen shamefull and wil­ful weaknesses in answering Mr. Knot's position that we may lawful'y forsake the Churche's Communion, if she be not infallible.

Mr. H. begins his third Section very angrily, calling mine (p. 31.) a perfect Romane-combate with a Wind-mil of my own erecting, toward which he never con­tributed the least stone or timber. But what if I show the Doctor, that he hath contributed great mill-stones and huge logges towards the making this Wind-mill of his?

My affirmation was that ( Schism Disarm'd, p. 14.) ‘he had got a new cloak for his Schism, the pretence of a weak conscience,’ citing for it his excusing words, that they could not subseribe to things which their conscien­ce tells them is false, and that it is hard to say a man can lawfully subscribe in that case, though the truth be on the Churche's side. Hence I deduced some consequence, how his doctrine excused those malefactours and their three pretended Schismaticks. In answer he calls this a mani­fest perversion of his most innocent expressions, because af­terwards he sayes, that such a weak-conscienc't erroneous man is in several respects crimtnous, &c. I reply, I do [Page 94] not forbid him to speak contradictions; for I perceive by his litle amendement he is not likely to take my friendly counsell: but let us see what those places which I related to there in the Doctor gave me occasion to say, and what they contributed towards this Wind-mill.

His first contribution is, that there is nothing alledged by him, where he pretends conscience in not obeying us, but the very same will much better serve any malefactour; so that his words may become their plea, and consequent­ly, unless he gave us some distinctive sign of the goodness of his conscience above theirs, his words are justly applia­ble to plead their cause.

His second is, that whereas onely rigorous and con­vincing Evidence can excuse such a disobedience, and he pretends none, I ought to think his conscience erroneous, and that for pleading for it, he pleads for erroneous Con­sciences; and may by the same resons plead for the other malefactours.

His third contribution is, that since on the one side he tells us it is hard to affirm that a man in an errour may lawfully subscribe, and on the other, leaves no Grounds to convince him rationally (for how can any man pretend to convince him, or he rationally assent to be convinced by an Authority which tells him it may be mistaken?) this weak-conscienc'd man may consequently have a ratio­nal Ground to remain in his false opinion, at least cannot be obliged to contrary belief, but thanks Dr. H. hearti­ly for pleading for his lawfull continuance in his beloved errour. Or if he be scrupulous of his errour, and Dr. H. afford him no perfectly-certain grounds to right it, but that (as he sayes here, and his Grounds make good) he is sure to sin which way soever he turns; 'tis likely Mr. H's good doctrine may make the poor fellow come straight home from the Probability-lecture, & take a rope & hang himself. This indeed were no great favour to a weak con­science.

[Page 95] His fourth contribution, ( cap. 7. par. 9.) is his position of the errour (in some case) on the Churche's side in some places in this Chapter; which very thing favours the self-conceit of every proud fellow, and gives him a fine pre­tence to think his erroneousness lawfull in disobeying that Authority, which could not oblige him in reason to belie­ve what herself knew not, but might be mistaken and erre in. Nay more, he very putting the Errour on the Chur­che's side takes away all obligation to believe her; and by consequence justifyes all erroneous consciences. Thus is the Wind-mill finish't at Dr. H's proper cost and charges, although he sayes he contributed not the least stone or timber: so truly liberal & noble he is, that after such pro­fuseness, he will not own nor acknowledge his bounty to his very Adversaries.

Next to these faults which Dr. H. hath committed in pleading for a weak conscience, follows his sin of omis­sion, I mean his neglect to answer my seventeenth & eigh­teenth pages, which obliged him to speak out, and say ei­ther I or no, to two points which are horrible Bull-beg­gers to him, wheresoever he meets them. The first is, ‘whether all assent of the Vnderstanding which comes not from perfect and demonstrative Evidence, springs not from passion and vice: The second, whether he and his Friends have such Evidence, that our Church erred, in delivering as of Faith, that the Pope, as Successour of S. Peter, was Head of the Church.’ These two points I made account were the two main hinges, on which that door turns which must shut them out of, or keep them in the Church; and therefore expected (not that he should produce his Evidence here, but) that he should have given some answer either affirmative or negative to them. But Grounds are very perillous edged tooles to meddle with, and cut the throat of errour at one slash; which costs much hacking and hewing when a Controversy is ma­naged [Page 96] by debating particularities. Again, the nature of Grounds is to entrench so near upon the first principles, and their termes are for the most part so unquestionably evident, that they leave no elbow-room for a shuffler to bestir his mock-reason in; which in particulars (not so ca­pable of scientifical proofs) especially in testimony-skir­mishe, seldom or never want. And therefore Dr. H. who is of that Generation of Controvertists, and very prudent in it, dit wisely omit to meddle with these points; though in that place he had ample occasion to treat of them.

But to proceed; Mr. Knot had affirm'd, that we may forsake the Churche's Communion in case she be fallible and subject to errour. Dr. H. inferred hence, ( of Schism p. 20.) that it was lawfull (if this were true) to forsake Communion of all but Angels and Saints and God in hea­ven: his reason was, because onely they were infallible and impeccable. To maintain the infallible certainty of Faith against this man, who would bring all to probabili­ty, I gave some instances, to let him understand, that Infallibility in men on earth was not so impossible a mat­ter as he fancies: Glancing also at his addition of Impec­cable, since the controversy there being about our tenet, which is Infallibility, the mingling it with Impeccability was a tacite calumny, intimating to the weaker Readers that this was also out tenet, or part of it. To these Dr H. pretends an answer, but so full of contradictions both to himself and common sense, that it would be tedious to enumerate them.

It were not amiss first to put down our plain tenet, which (as far as it concerns this present controversy) is this, That since it is unworthy the Wisdom and Good­ness of Almighty God, who sent his Son to save mankind, not to first lay, and then leave efficacious means for that end; which means (considering the nature of mankind to which they were to be apply'd) are no other than effica­cious [Page 97] motives, & efficacioully proposed, to make him for­sake temporary and fleeting Goods, and embrace Intelle­ctual & Eternal ones, (his onely Felicity,) with which the affections to the former are inconsistent: again, since these motives cannot be efficaciously proposed to the Vniversa­lity of mankind, unless Faith, the doctrine of them, be cer­tain: hence to ascertain Faith, Christ gave testimony to his doctrine by doing such prodigious miracles as no man did before; and when he left us, unless he had left also some means to propose certainly those motives to future mankind, his coming had been in a manner voyd, for as­much as concern'd posterity; and the rational and con­vincing certainty of his doctrine (and by consequence the efficacy of it) had been terminated in those few which himself by his preaching and miracles converted. Hence it was necessary the Apostles should also ascertain his and their doctrine by the extraordinary testification of mira­cles. The multitudes of believers encreasing, the ordinary and common working of miracles began to cease; and con­troversies beginning to rise between those who pretended to the Law of Christ, the consent of Christians in all Na­tions was now sufficient to convince that that was Christ's doctrine and true, which the Apostles Successours told them they had received from the Apostles themselves. For it was not possible so many, dispers't in several Na­tions, should conspire to a palpablely, in a visible, practi­call and known thing, cōcerning their eternal Interest. They had nothing else now to doe, but to attest what they had received: Christ being unanimously acknowledg'd a per­fect Law giver, there needed no new revelations to patch and mend his noway-defective doctrine. The Company of Believers multiplying daily and spreading, this attestation encreased still, and grew incomparable stronger, and the impossibility of either voluntarily lying, or involuntarily mistaking, became every day greater and greater.

[Page 98] In this universal delivery from hand to hand, called Tradition (or, to avoid equivocation, Oral Tradition) we place the impossibility of the Churche's conspiring to erre in attesting things most palpable and most important; which we call her Infallibility Vpon this we receive God's written word; hence we hold our Faith infallibly-certain; that is, so true, as it cannot but be true, as far as concerns that Christ & his Apostles taught such doctrine: hence lastly, to come nearer home, we hold for certain and of Faith that S. Peter is Chief of the Apostles, and the Pope his Successour, and that the renouncers of his Au­thority are Hereticks and Schismaticks, since this sole­certain Rule of all Faith, Oral Tradition, now shown to be infallible, recommended it to us as delivered from im­mediate Fore-fathers, as from theirs, and so upwards time out of mind: which Rule the first Reformers in this point most manifestly renounced, when they renounced that Authority. For they could not have been the first Re­formers, had they found it delivered by Oral Tradition.

By this is shown first in what we place the Infallibili­ty of the Church: not in the bare words of a few parti­cular men, but in the manifest and ample attestation of such a multitude as cannot possibly conspire to tell a lie, to wit, in attesting onely that Christ's doctrine, which is of a most concerning nature and of a most visible quality, was taught to a world of Children by a world of Fore-fathers. This clear and short explication of our tenet premised, let us see how weakly Dr. H. hath proceeded in this dangerous point.

His first weakness is, that he thinks Mr. Knot's say­ing very strange, that, we might forsake the Church [...]'s Communion in case she were fallible. Whereas nothing can be more rational and solid than that position. For why may not we forsake the Churche's Communion, if she hath no power to bind to unity in Faith which makes [Page 99] us one of hers? and how can she have any power to bind us to unity in Faith, unless she be altogether certain first her self of that to which she would oblige others, that is, unless she be infallible in teaching attested truths? To an­swer (as hee does, Reply, p. 13.) she may oblige others to believe, though fallible, as long as she is not actually in errour, is the greatest piece of folly imaginable, for still the question recurres, Is she infallibly certain that she is not actually in errour? if she be, she is again Infallible, if not, she cannot impose any obligation of belief. Hence Dr. H. may see, that unless there he some company of men on earth infallible, it is impossible there should be an obligation to Vnity in Faith: nay there can be no posi­tive obligation to hold any point of Faith at all, unless they conspire to do so and hang together by hap-hazzard; that is, be no Body of men, but a company of good fel­lows met together by chance; and consequently there can be no Church or Common-wealth of Believers, much less a lasting one, without this Infallibility.

Note that the obligation here spoken of is not an ob­ligation to act or comport ones self exteriourly, as in tem­poral Common-wealths; but to hold and believe; and consequently man's nature being Reason, nothing but an Authority built on evidence of inerrability can rationally oblige men to assent upon that Authority. So that Mr. Knot and I shall very readily grant all Mr. H's conse­quence ( Answ. p. 32.) that if there be no infallible Church, there would be no possibility for any on earth to be guilty of the sin of Schism.

His second weakness is, that in excusing himself for ad­ding impeccable, he thinks to evade, by telling us (p. 32) that he conceived humane nature to be in it self equally lia­ble to sin and errour, and so no more infallible than impec­cable. Suppose it were, (which yet is not granted) what follows for his advantage thence, unless he could [Page 100] manifest that all men might fall at once into any one self-same kind of sin? Are there causes layd in the world, or can there be, (considering the nature of a world) able to make all men conspire to cut their own throats to mor­row? if not, then in case this should happen, there would be an effect without a cause, that is there would follow a Contradiction: which being impossible, it must follow likewise, that it is impossible they should be all peccable in that kind, and consequently, the Doctor may learn that a multitude of men may be also impeccable in some kind of sin. Now to parallel this with Infallibility, as held by us: we doubt not but of this multitude called the Church, some may be fallible in one thing, some in ano­ther; but that all should conspire either to mistake or de­lude, so as to tell so damnable and palpable a ly, as that they had been thus tauhgt by their Ancestour, if they had not, is the Impossible of Impossibles; nay equally im­possible as for Nature to fail in the propagation of any en­tire species; as for all the houses in the world to be set on fire to morrow, or for all men to die in their sleep this night; none of which can be done without destroying na­ture, whose causes are placed necessarily in several circum­stances, and so work with variety. Yet Dr. H. tells us, ( Answ. p. 33.) that his words are as evident a truth as could have been mentioned by him: and truly I think the Reader will believe him ere we come to the end of this book. But I hast.

His third weakness is, that whereas we place this Infal­libility in a Church, that is, in a multitude of Believers, he tells us, (p. 33. and 35) the Pope, the Bishop of Ephe­sus, Loadicea, &c. and many other Governours have fal­len into errour: but can he show me that all the Gover­nours of the Church, or half of them have erred, or indeed can possibly erre in attesting as aforesaid? If not, let him acknowledge how weak a Scripturist he is, in giving it such [Page 101] an Interpretation as impossible to be true, whiles ( Answ. p. 35.) he makes the Text I am with you always, even to the end of the world, because secondarily spoken to the succeding Governours, to stand with their erra­bleness.

Hi fourth weakness is, that like those who are making a pittifull excuse for a bad cause, his unfledg'd discourse sticks between the teeth of a parenthesis, and dates not come out plain. His words are (after he had told us, p. 33) the Pope and any other single man in the world might erre as well as sin;) that in proportion any multi­tude or assembly might (the major, and so prevalent part of them) consent in an errour, as well as in a vice. I ask, can that whole multitude consent in a palpable errour in things visible, or no? If they can, what means that grum­bling parenthesis of the maior part, and to what end or purpose was it brought, since all might erre? If they can­not all erre in such a case, but the major part onely, then there can be some company on earth Infallible, (to wit that whole multitude) which is the thing in question. How much more credit were it to lose a bad cause by speaking out candidly, than to strive to maintain it by such pittiful shifts?

His fifth weakness is, that whereas he affirmed onely Saints and Angels in heaven, and God to be infallible, and I instanced ( Schism Disarm'd, p. 19.) in some on earth, to wit the Apostles; whom I alledged to have been ‘infallible in penning the sacred writ, and preaching the Gospel:’ He answers, ( Answ. p. 33.) that sure they are comprehended in the number of Saints in beaven, for there undoubtedly they are Tell me seriously, good Reader, and without smiling, is not Dr. H. worthy to be rec­kon'd the eighth wise-man; who, when I ask him concer­ning men doing offices in their life-time here on earth, tells me that they are now, or were aftervards Saints in heaven?

[Page 102] His sixth weakness is, his second answer to the same in­stance of mine, to wit, that it is most true that they were assisted by Christ, so as they did not, nor could erre in pen­ning the sacred writ, and preaching the Gospel That is, he grants my instance brought against him to be true, and himself to be in an errour, when he said that none but those in heaven were infallible: For sure if those could not erre (as he grants) in doing these offices performed by them while they were on earth, then some men on earth may be Infallible in some thing, to wit in things necessary for the Salvation of mankind; which is all we demand, and as much as we profess.

His seventh, eighth, and ninth weaknesses are, that after he had thus granted all that was pretended, to wit their Infallibleness in those two sorts of actions; (because he would be sure to say something to every thing, though to never so litle purpose, as his custome is) he addes first, that they were not infallible in all sorts of things. What man in his wits ever pretended it or imagin'd, but that the Apostles might count mony wrong, or be mistaken in knowing what a clock it was? Was ever such frivolous stuff heard of? Next he tells us that as they were men on earth, they were fallible. What a mysterious piece of sen­ce is here? He hath already confuted himself by gran­ting that when they were men on earth, they were Infalli­ble, which was solely pretended; & now that he may seem to impugn us, he tacitely counterfeits us to hold that their Infallibility proceeds as from it's formal reason, not from the assistance of the holy Ghost, but from their being men on earth, and by consequence that each man on earth is infallible; since à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia, Thirdly, whereas my words which ( Answ. p. 34.) hee makes head against, are onely of those two said acts, in which hee at length grants they were infallibly assisted by the confirmation of the holy Ghost; he rakes up all the [Page 103] Apostles faults and failings before the holy Ghosts des­cent, and thinks to elude my words and delude his Rea­der by these more than childish evasions.

His tenth weakness is, that he extends (p. 34.) by a voluntary mistake (because he would still have something to say) Mr. Knot's words, that the Church was infalli­ble and not subject to errour, to signify, that it shall un­doubtedly be preserved from falling into errour, and that not onely from this or that sort of errour, but indefinitely from all: As if the controversy between Mr. Knot and him were not onely about Infallibility in delivering mat­ters of Faith. Is not this a sincere man, who would make persons wiser than himself, seem so imprudent as to think the Church Infallible in judging whether the Circle can be squared, whether Sprights walk in S. Faiths under Paul's, or whether a goose-py or a shoulder of mutton be the better dish? By Dr. H's Logick it must be out tenet, that the Holy Ghost whispers the Church in the ear, to speak truth in all these and millions of other such unneces­sary fooleries; and all this absurdity must light upon us, onely from this, because Mr. Knot and S. W. said the Church is infallible and not subject to errour, when the discourse was about matters of Faith necessary for the sal­vation of mankind. The like non sense shuts up his ele­venth Paragraph as the result of the discourse before it; so again in the twelfth and fourteenth the same mistaking weakness is that which gives all the strength to the dis­course: and it is worth the Readers notice, that he never impugnes our tenet of Infallibility, but by such kind of forgery.

His eleventh weakness is, his shuffling in his eleventh Paragraph, where after he had told us very truly, that the Apostles had agreed on all things needful for the Church, & deposited them in each Church, as their Rule of Fai [...]h; when he drew near the point in question, to wit, whe [...]her [Page 104] the depositary (or Church) was infallible and could not erre in delivering the right depositum, or whether she might perhaps deliver a wrong one; he flies off, and tells us ( Ans. p. 35.) if they would adhere to that, there needed no sit­peradded Infallibility to things unnecessary. Did ever Mr. Knot or I talk of Infallibility in things unnecessary? or is this the point disputed between Catholicks and Prote­stants? Good Mr. H. speak out, and tell us whether the depositary can mistake or no in delivering needfull points: if she can, where is the certainty of our Faith? if she cannot, then some company of men on earth are in­fallible in delivering things necessary for Salvation; which is the point in Controversy.

His twelfth weakness is, that in going about to show how he can be infallibly certain of the books of Scripture, he unawares recurres to our Rule of Faith, though he ne­ver intends to stand to it; affirming here ( Answ. p. 36.) that the testimony of others founded in their several sen­sations being faithfully conveyed to us by undeniable Tra­dition, are as unquestionably certain as if we had seen them ourselves, that is, as he intimates before (l. 3.) infallible; instancing, that of this sort is the tradition of the universal primitive Church, &c. Where first, if this be true, I have gained my intent; which was to show against him, that some company of men might be infallible in attesting things of Faith, though not in all things, as he calum­niates us to hold. Next, if the Tradition of the Primitive Church be infallible, for the reason given, I ask why the succeeding Church should not enjoy the same priviledge; since the doctrine of Fore fathers being visible & practi­cal, and so founded in the several sensations of the chil­dren, they can by witnessing transmit it to their posterity, asun questionably truly, as if the Grand-children had seen what was held and practised in the Grand-fathers time. Nay, unless he grant this, he hath done nothing, that is, he [Page 105] hath not shown that he hath any certainty of the books of Scripture: for if the Tradition in the primitive Church onely be infallible, I may be mistaken in believing the succeeding Tradition in this point, since that may deceive me, for any thing I know; if the after Tradition also was Infallible, then we conquer without dispute in this and all other Controversies about Faith, since we were found adhering to this universal testification of all our Forefa­thers, whereas they renounc't it when they renounced the Authority it recommended, and ran to other Grounds, private interpretations of Scripture, and odde scraps of misunderstood testimonies, and still are glad to sow to­gether these thin figge-leaves to cover the nakedness of their deformed Schism.

His thirteenth weakness is, that in testifying, as above-said, he sayes the Church is not considered as a society of believers indowed with any inerrable priviledge, but as a number of witnesses, &c. As if they did not first believe it themselves, ere they could conspire to deliver it to their Children for true; or as if the same persons may both be Beleevers in respect of their Progenitours, and Wit­nesses in respect of their posterity. No wiser is his assertion that nothing is here contested from the Authority of their judgments. For if he means, the points which they con­test are not founded on their judgments, 'tis most certain­ly true; since (speaking of points of Faith) they are truths revealed by God, not productions of mens heads. But if he means, their judgments went not along with their contestations, but while they testified to have re­ceived them from their Ancestours, they spake contrary to their judgment; then they all conspired to tell a ly to their posterity in things of Faith, which is impossible.

The fourteenth Paragraph runs partly upon the same affected mistake of Infallibility. I asked him (to put in him some apprehension that a company of men on earth [Page 106] ‘might be Infallible, which he deny'd) if all the Protestants could be fallible in witnessing whether twenty years agoe there were Protestant Bishops or no.’ First he will neither say, I, nor no to the point; onely he sayes, ( Answ. p. 37.) he beleeves not they can probably mistake in that thing; Next he tells us this is no proof that they are any way infallible in all matters of fact, without all possible mixture of errour. Is it possible Mr. H. should think his Reader so silly, as to take such ridiculous tergiversations for a sufficient Ans­wer? My question was whether they could erre, and con­spire to tell an open ly in a thing visible as the Sun at noon-day? and Dr. H. first shuffles at that, and then counterfeits that I pretend them Infallible in all matters of Fact whatsoever; as in ghessing what past in the late Kings priuy Councel while he was living, or whether Be­vis of Hampton fought with a Dragon or no.

Dear Reader, I must address a line or two to thee, and desire thee if thou beest Dr. H's Friend, to ask him whe­ther it be the Catholicks tenet, that the Church is infalli­ble in matters of Faith onely, or in all things indefinitely; as in knowing the height & number of the Starres, what weather it shall be every day next yeare, &c. if he cannot show the latter to be the tenet of our Church, then a [...]k him from S. W. whether he hath either shame or con­science in him to evade answering the point by imposing upon our Church a counterfeit tenet, and which himself knows to be such, and then making it the but of his ayre-beating impugnation, repeating it so often (though once were enough to move a blush, had not custome taken a­way sense) that I am confident any candid Reader will nauseate and be offended at so odious a piece of funda­mental insincerity. His other weaknesses mingled with this, especially his skipping aside from the question to the fallibility of private men, shuffling about for excuses, in stead of answering, I or no, with other sleights already [Page 107] lay'd open, make up a mess of most excellent non-sense, call'd, in another phrase, Dr. H's third Section.

Sect. 11.
What miserable work Dr. H. makes with that plain propo­sition: A Church that is fallible, and knows not whe­ther it lies or no in any proposition, cannot have Po­wer to bind any to believe her.

MY fourth Section touched at three points, ( Schism Disarm'd p. 21.) the ground of Vnity in a Church, the groundlesness of Schism, and of Mr. H's manner of ar­guing to clear himself of the latter: inserting also some part of the Catholick Gentleman's letter, which tended to those purposes. The first I show'd to consist in the In­fallibility of that Authority, which justly pretends to ob­lige the assent of others to her proposals. Hence follows the second, that no Schismatical Congregation, that ac­knowledges it self fallible, can with any face pretend to im­pose an obligation of belief; nor yet excuse it self for brea­king from acknowledg'd Antiquity or possession, upon fallible, that is, probable Grounds. The third was, that since the Schism we object to the Protestants is charged by us to be such as involves heresy, and by consequence the renouncing our Rule of Faith, it was the weakest piece of reason that ever was reason'd by a Doctor of Divinity, to make the summe and ground of all his Answer, the de­nying the said Rule of Faith, (our Churche's Infallibili­ty) which was in effect to confess the Fact, and to prove he is no Schismatick, because he is an Heretick and Schis­matick both.

For answer to these three points he referres me to his Reply cap. 2 Sect. 3. In return to which, as far as hath not already been answered, I shall give these satisfactory re­flexions [Page 108] upon the main points; not attending him in each Paragraph, in many of which the insipid Crambe of his own self sayings is boyl'd over and over. But first he sends three or four whifflers upon the stage to trifle it, ere the tragedy of Faith and it's certainty begins.

His first trifle is, that the Catholick Gentleman calls that Mr. Knot's concession, which is his Conclusion from that Concession. A sore quarrel! as if he who granted the premisses, and made the inference himself, must not also grant the Conclusion; if so, then his Conclusion is his Concession as well as the premisses.

His second trifle is, that Reply p. 14. he pretends, all that was by him taken notice of, was the consequence between the Premisses and that Conclusion, which naturally inferred a third thing, that it was unlawful to forsake the Communion of any fallible Church; and the Catholick Gentleman's impugning his admiration at it, and confirming this main point of the Controversy, he calls a digression; whereas it is a pure shuffling in him to avoyd this Question, which is fundamental, and solely important to this present Con­troversy, concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of se­parating from the true Church, upon pretence of being bound by her to equivocate or ly.

His third trifle is, that he tells us ( Repl. p. 14.) he may certainly affirme how this Thesis of ours [ A Church that is fallible and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition, cannot have power to bind any to beleeve what she saith,] is no infallible truth nor deduced from any in­fallible principle; whereas it is as evident a principle as any in nature, that no man can in reason oblige another to hold what himself knows not: as also that he can­not be said truly to know that, in which he knows and confesses he may be mistaken. To this the Shuffler sayes nothing.

His fourth trifle is, when we speak of obligation of be­leef, [Page 109] to slip the point, and talke of obligation to act or obey; telling us wisely here, that A Prince can command obedience though he be not infallible. Is it possible Mr. H. must be continually obliged by his cause to such affected insincerity, as still to counterfeit the mistake of the que­stion? The same he repeats again p. 16. and sayes the Governours thus oblige inferiours to obedience by force of the Apostles [...]; whereas the question is, whether the Apostles, who held that without Faith (that is, without truth) it is impossible to please God, ever com­manded us to believe that Congregation, which (being fallible) might for any thing it or we know lead us into damnable errours. I know that a probability of the thing in it self can oblige a man to act; as a sudden Alarum of the enemies probable approach ought in prudence to rouse a General to provide for resistance; but nothing ex­cept evidence can move to assent, nor can any pretend law­fully and rationally to oblige to it, but they who have Evidence that they cannot be mistaken in what they would bind others to believe. See the judicious and learned Pre­face to Rusworth's Dialogues, where this point is largely handled and fully cleared.

These trifles having thus play'd their parts and whiffled a while, out step the main bangers, and lay about them at Faith, it's certainty, Church, and all whatsoever can make us rationally Christians.

First, the former Thesis, that a Church which is falli­ble, and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition, cannot have power to bind any to believe what it saith, which stood firm enough in it's own plain terms, is by Mr H's art made straddle foure several ways, so to dis­pose it to a downfal; and drawn and quarter'd with un­heard of tortures, because it will not confess a falshood, of which it was not conscious. The foure distracted limbs of it, which are to be anatomiz'd particularly, are here [Page 110] put down by Mr. H. (p. 15.) 1. What is meant by [can ly.] 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no. 3 By Power to bind. 4. By Belief. An ordinary Reader that mean't honestly would think these words very easy: but that is their fault to be too easy; they must be blunder'd and made harder, otherwise the Reader would find no dif­ficulty to assent to them.

But is not this merciless rigour? The first and second ought not to have been torn from one another, being the same; for if the Church can lie hic & nunc in such a pro­position attested by her, and hath no infallible certainty she doth not, then it follows that she doth lie for any thing she knows.

The same cruelty is shown in dismembring and taking asunder that one notion of [ power of binding to belief] which was the whole import of the controversy and in treating the notion of power to bind, apart from that o­ther of Belief: By this shamefull and unconscionable craft, avoiding the whole question, and applying the words, power to bind (which now had got loose of belief) to obligation to render exteriour obedience p. 16.

In his paraphrase upon the words [ can lie] he hath one passage worth all his Friends especial attention; which is, that after he had enumerated all the means he could imagine to secure a Church from errour, he confesses, ( Rep. p. 15. & 16.) that that Church is yet fallible, may affirm and teach false, Id est (saith he) it is naturally possible it may, but it is not strongly probable it will. Then it seems after all this adoe (for any thing he hath said) it is still indifferently and equally probable that it does erre, though not strongly probable it will; that is, the Faith of that Church, and all that adhere to it, hang in equal scales whether it be true or no: and this solid piece of sense is produced by Dr. H. in a discourse about a Churche's pow­er to bind to belief. Take notice, Reader, how shuffling­ly [Page 111] the Doctor behaves himself in saying, it is naturally possible that Church may erre, providing himself an eva­sion beforehand in the word ( naturally) against any en­counter. This man hath forsworn ever being positive with his Reader: Ask him whether supernaturally (or by means of supernatural assistance) it be or be not im­possible she should erre; if not, what mean't the word naturally, since he knows we hold, the Church is super­naturally infallible? if it be, to what end, after recko­ning up also there supernatural means of confirming her against erring, did he tell us in the close with an Id est, that she is naturally fallible?

As for the Churche's knowledge whether it erre or no, he sayes, ( Rep. p. 16.) it may signify no more than a full persuasion and belief, cui non subest dubium, where in they neither doubt, nor apprehend reason of doubting, that what they define is truth; though for knowledge properly so cal­led, or assurance, cui non potest subesse falsum, it may not have attained, or pretend to have attained to it. Where first, to omit his declining a positive answer, whether the Church be Infallible or no, with may not have attai­ned, &c. 'tis the most perfect piece of perniciousness that ever was crouded into so narrow a room, destroying at once all Faith, and Ground of Faith, and making the Church no certainer of her Faith than Iews, Turks, and Heathens of theirs▪ For if the Churche's knowledge whe­ther she erreor no means that she hath onely a full persua­sion, cui non subest dubium; Turks, Heathens and Iews have that, are fully persuaded and have no doubt▪ but their Faith is true, and so Mr. H. hath brought Christianity to a fair pass, by his Rule of Faith. Again, passion and vice can breed in men a full persuasion that an errour is true, & such a persuasion as shall take away actual doubt; nay the more passion a man is in, the less still he doubts. Is this a congruous explication of a Church's knowledge, [Page 112] which leaves it indifferent whether she be rationally and virtuously, or passionately and viciously thus fully per­suaded?

Lastly, if the Churche's knowledge whether she erre or no, be onely an assurance cui potest subesse falsum, why may not there subesse dubium; that is, if it may be false, why may not she doubt of it, or indeed why should not she be bound to doubt of it? Falshood in things concer­ning Eternity is a dangerous rock, and ought to breed caution, (which goes ever accompany'd with doubt) where the security is not perfect: now how can the know­ledge that it may be otherwise found a secutity that the thing is so; that is, is not otherwise? or what hinders her from doubting, if she sees she may be wrong? If Mr. H. reply that the Church was surprised, or had not so much wit as to raise the difficulty, then indeed she may thank her circumstances, or her doltishness, not her Grounds, for that her groundless assurance. For otherwise, should she call her thoughs to account, and ask herself this question, Why do I assent with a full persuasion to such a thing which I see may be otherwise? she must, if she understand the nature of a soul & morality, acknowledge it was passi­on & vice, not evidence of reason which made her assent; and consequently hold her self obliged to retract that as­sent, and leave off to hold any point of Christian doctrine, nay even that Christ is God, without a perpetual doubt and fear that the contrary may be true. So perfectly weak and fundamentally pestilent is this explication of a Churches knowledge by a persuasion, cui non subest du­bium, yet cui potest subesse fals [...]m; that is, of which the person doubts not, although the thing in it self may be false. But this keeps perfect decorum with his former as­sertion, that it is not strongly (that is, it may be equally) probable that a Church will erre, though she have used all means imaginable to secure her self from errour.

[Page 113] After his false explication of Power to bind already spoken of, which he turns to an obligation to act and obey exteriourly; he addes, as if the obligation to Belief were collateral onely to our purpose, that there may farther be meant by those words,) he ought to have said, there must be onely meant by them) à general obligation to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed. But how a Church uncertain of what herself holds can duly propose Grounds able to convince rationally or that a confest and known fallibility in the proposer is sufficient in it self to make such a ground, he shall never show, unless he can show reason to be non-sense, and non-sense Reason; though he can talk finely, and shuffle about in general terms.

I am confident the Reader will think, that the former words in that proposition are very ill handled by Dr. H. but the last word [ Believing] comes not off so well: Death is too good for it, nothing but annihilation and to­tal destroying it's essence must be it's merciless doom. His explication of it comes to this, ( Reply p. 16.) that they who are so wise as to search, must consent according to the Grounds proposed as most palpable; that is, they must believe themselves. I ask are they bound or no to be­lieve the Church, when they have but probability to the contrary? if not, where is their submission of their judge­ments, where is their believing the Church? unless they be willing to submit their private opinions to her Autho­rity, how can they be said to believe her at all? Is there any easier deference than to for goe a probability upon her contrary affirmation? Or, if he say they may have rigorous and convincing Evidence against her▪ that is▪ if he grant Infallible Certainty in Faith can be had, then why should Dr. H. take this from the Church, and give it to a private fellow? As yet therefore we have found Belief, by his explication, to signify in reality no [Page 114] belief of the Church at all: let us proceed.

He tells us next, that when the person is not competent to search Grounds, then ( Repl. p. 17.) Belief may signi­fy, a believing so far, as not to disbelieve. Was ever such an explication heard of? Good Reader, if thou beest Dr. H's Friend, trust nothing but thine own eyes in such an in­credible piece of fledge heresy and Atheism in the shell; let nothing but thine own eyes satisfy there, that it is pos­sible for one who hath the title of Doctor of Divinity to print and set forth a position so full fraught with absur­dities of the seventeens.

Let us count them by the poll. First, if the measure of that belief to which the Church can oblige the ruder sort, be onely to believe so far as not to disbelieve, then in reality she can oblige them to believe nothing at all, but onely to remain in an indifferency of Scepticism: for he who doubts of all things, or halts between two opinions, believes so far as not to disbelieve; since not holding the contrary to any thing, he positively disbelieves nothing.

Secondly, an Heathen who never heard of Christ, be­lieves so far as not to disbelieve; for how can he be said to disbelieve a thing of which he never heard? So that Dr. H's Church can onely oblige her Subjects to be as good believers or Christians, as Heathens are; but to pro­ceed.

Thirdly, to believe so far as not to disbelive, signifies in plain terms to belive nothing at all; for he puts it not to signify a believing so far as to believe, but a believing so far as not disbelieve; that is, he exacts no belief for the point, provided there be no disbelief against it. So that as before, p. 16. he made the knowledge of a Church that she defin'd truly, to be no more than a not doubting of it, which can proceed from ignorance as well as know­ledge: so here Belief must pretended capable to bear the sense of not-believing; provided that the not-belie­ving [Page 115] be not a positive disbelief of this, or belief of the con­trary.

Fourthly, I would gladly know of Mr. H. why the sa­me Authority which has power to bind one not to disbe­lieve, may not also oblige to believe: if she can propose evident and convincing reasons to her Children that she cannot erre, then she may without dispute oblige me to the latter; for such motives are in their own nature able to convince the understanding, and unless she can propo­se such, by what ground can she withhold me from disbe­lieving, or holding the contrary? Vnless perhaps the Do­ctor pretend to show, that the probable reasons for her fallibility and Infallibility be so justly and equally poiz'd in the Sceptick ballance, that none can say whether the pound of rushes in the one end, or the pound of strawes in the other be the weightier ware, or better worth three-halfepence.

These explications with their wise appurtenances thus premised, Dr. H. knits them up in these two propositions, p. 17.

1. A Congregation that is fallible and hath no knowled­ge or assurance (cui non potest subesse falsum) that it is not deceived in any particular proposition, may yet have autho­rity to make decisions, and require inferiours so far to acquies­ce to their determinations, as not to disquiet the peace of the Church with their contrary opinions. ( that is, no to belie­ve at all, but onely to behave themselves quietly.) 2. But for any absolute Infallible belief or consent, That, no Church which is not it self absolutely infallible, and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible, hath power to require of any.

Where the first proposition is certainly false, if the sub­ject be certain, that that is false which his fallible Church proposes to him, and that it is a point which concerns salvation not to erre in: and senseless, if (as Dr. H. seems [Page 116] to suppose it may be (the inferiours assent is no way re­quired; for, how can a speculative point be decided au­thoritatively, if the inferiour be no way bound to assent, but to acquiesce onely?

The second proposition is the granting that very point, against which he pretended to make head, to the resolu­tion also of which his former discourse hath not in the least sort contributed. So perfectly needless and to no imaginable purpose, but onely to shuffle words together on any fashion, is his elaborate non-sense.

Note Reader, that in his first proposition he puts not Belief at all, (which yet is the onely matter in question) but in the latter onely; nor dares he trust it abroad there, but well guarded with absolute and Infallible: But I fear not his big words. Let him know, our tenet is, that our Church hath power to oblige, not to an hovering con­ditional belief, but to an absolute and infallible one: nor do we fear to affirm, that the Faithful in the Catholick Church have infallible certainty of their Faith, though they cannot explicate it, or give a Logical account of their own thoughts.

It were not amiss here to let the Reader see upon this occasion, what Dr. H's manner of answering is: of which his whole book is ful; but one example once put, will make the Reader easily find it's fellows. The question is, whether obligation to belief can be without Infallibility: He quibbles upon each word, as if he would do strange things against it, and makes up, by his explications, this worthy proposition; that a Church, which it is (p. 16. l. 1.) not strongly probable that it will erre, and (p. 16. l. 8) properly speaking knows not whether it erre or no, may (p. 16. l. 16.) yet oblige men to obedience, and (them that cannot search) to believe (not positively and indeed, as the Reader must conceive) but onely so far as not to disbelieve; that is, that her self knowing nothing properly [Page 117] or positively, can by consequence oblige none to believe any thing properly and positively, but to obey onely. Is not this a fine upshot of such an elaborate answer? And when he hath done this, then he addes another proposi­tion, Parag 22. which confesses all that he stumbled at before, and which onely was in question. Let us put a pa­rallel to his manner of discourse. Suppose one should af­firm, that a whole Apple is bigger than a half; and main­tain it, because Totum est majus parte, A whole is grea­ter then a part; Dr. H's manner of answering would work upon it in this sort. First, the word [ whole] may sig­nify a whole Mole hill, or a whole Mountain, a whole web of cloath, or a whole thred. Next, the word majus, or greater, may signify greater in longitude, in latitudine, or in profundity. Lastly, the word pars, may signify part of a Mole hill part of a Mountain, part of a web, &c. This done, he would joyn these together, which are not the things in question, (as he did in the former of his two proposition) and tell us, that speaking of a Mole-hill and a Mountain, 'tis certain, that part of a Mountain may not be greater than a whole Mole-hill, and so likewise part of the web of cloth to wit, a whole thred, may not be grea­ter in longitude than the whole web. Then coming to the question, adde a parallel to his second proposition, and conclude in these words; But as for an Apple and it's part, speaking of the quantity belonging to a body, that is profundity or bulk, '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 Beleef consists in, and how rationally our Church, how irrationally the Protestants pretend to such a Power: together with a Godly and edifying Sermon of Mr. H's according to his Doctrine when he disputes against us.

IT were not amiss here, to clear this important point the better, to lay open in brief what is this Power in the Church to bind her Sons to beleef, and in what it consists. For I doubt not but Mr. H. wonders, and many judicious Protestant Readers may perhaps remain sollicitous to ima­gine, how and in what manner there can be any power to force & cōmand the Soul to an interiour beleef or assent. But I hope this short hint will make them see that this power is founded upon free & rationall Grounds, not a ty­rannical bare command of any authority whatsoever. It is confest then, that as a body cannot be moved locally, but after a corporeal & quantitative manner, as is it's nature; so neither can a soul, which is of it's nature rational, be moved to assent, but by resons and motives, (whether true or false) and were it moved otherwise, it were not moved as a thing of such a nature, that is, it would not be a rational soul. Now since pure Reason consists in infer­ring a connexion of two things or notions, because of their joynt connexion with a third in the premisses, and this al­so an immediate one (for a connexion which is not imme­diate is in reality none at all, at least to the Vnderstan­ding, since in that case it sees it not) it follows, that the Soul is never moved out of pure Reason to any assent, but by such an immediate connexion seen, that is, by Evi­dence, and consequently all assents which have not this originall, spring from impurity of passion, that is, from vice [Page 119] Wherefore since it is impossible, God, who is Essential Sanctity, should command a vice, it follows, that as on the one side either he has left no power to oblige to assent, or if he have, it must be founded in Evidence, so on the other, if there be any authority on earth which can evidence her Certainty of what she sayes, that Authority hath power to oblige others in vertue of the said Evidence to assent to what she shall affirm, that is, to oblige them to beleef: for this is no harder a treaty, than to bind them to that to which their own nature had bound them before-hand, that is, to assent upon Evidence.

To apply this then to the point in hand. The Church obliges her Children to rest and continue in her beleef, by the same motive by which she could oblige them when they were out of her, to assent to her doctrine, so far as con­cerns it's having been taught by Christ and his Apostles. This motive is the proposal of her own Authority, or of millions and millions of Fathers in the Catholick Church, all conspiring to witness that those points of doctrine (things visible and most concerning) were received from their Ancestours, as from their, and so ascending up­wards, as from Christ. The vertue by which this Autho­rity or incomparable multitude of witnesses claims to be a motive, and to have power to convince the Vnderstan­ding and so oblige to assent to their word, that is, to be­leeve, is the Evidence of the treble-twisted Impossibility, that this Authority either would conspire in any age to at­test so notorious an untruth, and so pernicious to their own, and their Children's eternal bliss; or, that they could either erre, or mistake in things so visible, or even contrive a conspiracy to embrace any one errour, considering the several Countreys in which they liv'd dispers't, and con­sequently their several natures, obligations, inclinations, interest, and other manifoldly-varying circumstances; or, lastly, if they would and could, (that is, did) attest, and [Page 120] so introduce an errour, that it should not be most visible and palpable in most undeniable and manifest circumstan­ces to the whole world, being a change of things openly-evident in manifest and universal practice before, and in a matter of highest concernment. These impossibilities of erring in delivering any point of Faith, render that Con­gregation evidently infallible which sticks close to this Rule, of delivering onely what she received as thus atte­sted: The Evidence of her Infallibility obliges a rational nature to assent upon such an Authority, that is, to beleeve; and consequently her Power to oblige Beleef is as firm as this Truth, that Evidence obliges the Vnderstanding to assent, which is reduced into this first principle, that Idem est idem sibi ipsi, or that Reason is Reason; since the act of Reason adhering to truth, is nothing else but an assent sprung from Evidence.

From this short discourse follows first, that our Churches Binding her children to beleef is evidently na­tural, just, charitable, rational and necessary; since she obliges them upon no other Ground than that which in it's own force had pre-obliged their nature to assent, to wit, Evidence.

Secondly, that no man can revolt from the Faith of such an Authority to any other, but through the highest degree of vice and passion; since they would be found in this case to assent to another, not onely without Evidence, but against it.

Thirdly, that therefore the Governours of the Church who proceed according to this power, may justly punish and excommunicate those who recede from her Beleef founded in her Authority thus evidenced; since this reces­sion must spring from vice, or a disorder'd affection in the will; and vice all the world allows may be punished.

Fourthly, that no tyranny can possibly be imputed to our Church, as long as she proceeds upon such Grounds; [Page 121] since she onely governs men according to their nature or Reason.

Fifthly, that they who adhere to any other fallible Con­gregation upon onely probable, that is, inevident Grounds, against her Authority thus evidenced, being therefo­re (as hath been shown) in the highest degree vicious and passionate, if they prove obstinate in it, ought upon necessity to be Excommunicated, cast out of the Church, and separated from the Congregation of the Faithfull. Reason showing plainly, if no good can be done for their obstinate Souls, order is to be taken that they do no hurt to the Souls of others.

Sixthly, that all who forsake this infallible attestation of the Church they were in, called Oral Tradition, (as did the Protestants in all points wherein they differ from us) deserve this Excommunication; since they left a pre-acknowledged Evidence, and began to dogmatize upon acknowledg'd probabilities onely; that is, left proceeding to assent in that manner which was acknowledgedly ra­tional, connatural and virtuous, and beginning to proceed in such a manner as is necessarily irrational unnatural, and vicious.

Seventhly, it follows, that a Congregation which is fal­lible cannot, without the greatest impudence in the world, pretend to oblige rational Souls to assent upon her Au­thority; since, if she sees she may be in the wrong hic & nunc in such a point, she can have no Evidence that she is not actually deceived in it, and so wanting Evidence to make good her Authority, she wants whatsoever can ob­lige a rational Soul to assent upon her Authority.

Eighthly, it follows hence, that not onely the Indepen­dents, Presbyterians, &c. may justly refuse to hear the Protestant Church, which acknowledges her self falli­ble, but that they sin if they should hear her; since in that case they would be found to assent to an Autho­rity, [Page 122] without evidence of the veracity of that Autho­rity.

Ninthly, it follows, that the Protestant Church acknow­ledging her self fallible (and the like may be said of all fallible Congregations) cannot even oblige the Indepen­dents, Presbyterians, &c to behave themselves quietly within their Church, and submit to their Government. For in case that fallible Congregation oblige her Chil­dren to a subscription or declaration of their assent to her doctrine, it were a vice either to assent without Evidence of authority, which is wanting to a fallible Church; or, subscribe without a real inward assent, as the Doctor himself confesses: they may then resist such a command of that Church, and express themselves contrary and dis­obedient.

Nay more, if that Congregation be fallible, it may possibly be in a damnable errour, and some one or more, may happen to see evidently that it is in such an errour; and many of ordinary capacity rationally doubt what the others see: now in that case, why may not the former make account it is their obligatiō to oppose that Church, and let men see their soul-endangering errour, may main­tain a party against her, and defy her as one who would bring Souls to Hell by her doctrine? As also, why may not the latter (rather than hazard the accepting a dam­nable errour) adhere to this company of Revolters, at least stand neutral between the Church and them?

Again, since it hath been shown they may renounce the Faith of a fallible Church, why may they not renounce her Government? since her Faith must needs be as sacred as her Government which depends on Faith, and is subor­dinate to it; Government being chiefly to maintain Faith, and such actions as proceed from Faith. Neither is it law­full yet to revolt against temporal Magistrates upon the score of their fallibility, in case they oblige their Subjects [Page 123] onely to act or obey according to the civil State, because that is a Government grounded onely upon natural rea­son, instituted for natural ends, and plainly evident it must be obey'd; unavoydable inconveniences following upon disobedience, which force us to confess, there's no safety for our lives or estates, without this Obedience.

Tenthly, it follows, that Dr. H's denying any company of men on earth to be Infallible, and by consequence, to have power to bind to beleef, is most exquisitely perni­cious, destroying at once all beleef, and leaving no obli­gation in the world, nay making it a sin to beleeve any Article of the Christian Faith. For since neither Scripture nor the doctrine of the Primitive Church (acknowledged by Dr. H. to have been built upon an Infallible Tradition) can be evidenced to us, but by some Authority faithful­ly conveying it down ever since that time; if this Autho­rity cannot be evidenced to be infallible, no man is bound in reason to assent or believe either Scripture to be God's word, or the Doctrine to be Christ's, upon her Authori­ty; since there wants Evidence of that Authority's vera­city, which can onely oblige to assent: nay more, he must needs sin in precipitating his assent without Evidence to ground it on.

Eleventhly, Dr. H. ( Answ. p. 36.) in another place grants that this universal attestation (in which we found the Churche's Infallibility and all these deductions) makes one as certain of a thing, as if he had seen it with his own eyes; and again confesses himself Infallibly certain of what he hath seen with his own eyes: which is as much as we either say or desire. Wherefore, the good Doctor doth a [...] once both confirm us, and contradict himself.

Lastly, it follows, that it is the height of frivolousness, for D. H. even to pretend excuse from obligation to be­leeve our Church, and assent to the doctrine of his own, without most undeniable and rigorous Evidence both for [Page 124] the errableness of ours, and the inerrableness of the Pro­testants Church.

By these brief deductions from that one evident Ground of the infallibility of Vniversal Attestation, the prudent Reader will plainly see, how consequently the Catholick Church proceeds to the grounds of Nature and Reason, & how inconsequently to both the Protestant Churches must necessarily goe, when they would oblige either to Government, or Faith: Since Certainty and Evidence once renounced, there remains nothing to move the Vn­derstanding to assent rationally; nor any thing to move it at all but passion, disorder'd affections, fear, or In­terest.

Many paradoxes seem very plausible and prety, while they are drest up in involving terms, which hide their de­formity; yet brought to Grounds and to Practice, show manifestly their shame. The former (to wit Grounds) confute them by showing them contradictory; the latter (that is, Practice) confounds them by showing them ab­surd. How implicatory Mr. H's doctrine of no power to bind to beleef is, and how inconsistent with Christian Faith, hath already been manifested by bringing it to Grounds; how absurd it is, will quickly be discerned by reducing it into practice. Let us imagin then that the Bells chime merri­ly to morning prayer, and that the whole town rings with the fame and noise that Dr. H. reputed the most learned of all the Protestant party (who quite confuted the Po­pe, and cut off the neck of Rome at one blow, in a book of Schism, and has lately, with a great deal of Greek, lopt off and seared the Hydra-head from ever growing more, in his Answer to Schism Disarm'd) would give them a gallant Sermon Whereupon, a great confluence of peo­ple coming together to receive edification, after a dirge sung in Hopkins rime very pittifully in memory of the de­ceased Book of Common-prayer, up steps Dr. H. repeats [Page 125] his Text, and fals to his Harangue: In which let us ima­gin that he exhorts them to renounce all the affections they have to all that is dear to them in this world, and place them upon a future state of eternal bliss, promised by Christ to all that serve him; in particular, let us ima­gin, he earnestly exhorts them with the Apostle, to stand fast in the Faith, and to hold even an Angel from Heaven accursed, if he taught the contrary; nay telling them they ought to lose theirs and their Childrens whole esta­tes, and lay down a thousand lives, rather than for-goe their Faith. This done, let us suppose him to draw to­wards a period, and conclude (according to his doctrine, when he disputes against us) in this manner: To all, this, dearly beloved, I exhort you earnestly in the Lord; yet notwithstanding, that I may speak candidly and ingenuously, and tell you the plain literall truth of our tenet, neither I, nor the Church of England, whose judgment I follow, are infallibly certain of this doctrine which I bid you thus be­leeve and adhere to. Our ( p. 15. l. 37. 38.) Church, I confess, is fallible, it may affirm and teach false, both in Christ's doctrine, and also in ( p. 23. l. 38 &c. &c. p. 24. l. 3.) saying which is true Scripture, and which the true sense of it; and consequently, I may perhaps have told you a fine tale all this while, with never a word of truth in it: but comfort your selves, beloved, for though it may be equally and indifferently probable it erres, yet it is not stron­gly probable that it will ( p. 16. l. 1.) Wherefore, dear­ly beloved Brethren, have a full persuasion I bese [...]ch you (as ( p 16 l. 6. 7.) our Church hath) that what she defines is the truth, when she defines against the Socinians that Christ is God; although, ( p. 16. l. 8.) properly speaking, she hath no certainty that he is so. The Governours of our Church may indeed lead you into damnable errours, being not infallible in Faith, yet you must obey them ( p. 16. l. 16.) by force of the Apostl's [...]; ( here [Page 126] the good-women are all-to-bewonder'd, and bless them­selves monstrously at the learned sound of the two Greek words) at least ( p. 17. l. 3.) beleeve them so far as not to disbelieve them. For mistake me not, beloved, I mean no more than thus, when I bid you stand fast in the Faith; hang in suspence, dear brethren, hang in a pious suspence, and beleeve it no improbable opinion that Christ is God, and that there is such a felicity as heaven: at least (what­soever you think in your heart) yet ( p. 17. l. 25.) quiet­ly acquiesce to the determinations of our Mother the Church of England, so far as not disquiet the peace of our Sion: although you should perhaps see that this Church did Idolatrously erre in making a man a God, and so give God's honour to a Creature, yet I beseech you, good bre­thren, acquiesce very quietly & peaceably; and although you could evidence that she was in damnable errours, and that she carried Souls quietly and peaceably to Hell, for want of some to resist and oppose her, yet let them goe to Hell by millions for want of true Faith; still enjoy you quietly your opinion, without opposing the Church, though th [...]s pernicious.

Were not this a wise and edifying Sermon? and enough to make his Auditours pluck him out of the Pulpit, if they beleeved him not; or, if they beleeved him, to return home Scepticks or Atheists? Yet how perfectly, chiefly in express termes, partly in necessary Consequences, it is his, his own words have already manifest [...]d: for the fa­mous Explications lately spoken of, he applies here to his Church, parag. 23. and his Rule of Faith must be either certain, and so make all points of Faith certain and infalli­ble truths; or if it be uncertain, nothing that is built up­on it can be certainer than it self, and by consequence, Christ's God-head must be uncertain also, and so there can be no power or motiue to oblige men to beleeve it more than the rest.

Sect. 13.
The four main Advantages of the Catholick Church wil­fully misrepresented. The Disproportion of Dr. H's pa­rallelling the Certainty of the Protestant's Faith to that of K H. the eighth's being King of England.

THe Cath. Gentl. mentioned, on the by, four advan­tages our Church had over any other, viz. Anti­quity, Possession, Persuasion of Infallibility, and Pledges which Christ left to his Church for motives of Vnion Speaking of the last of these, Dr. H. tells us here, ( Repl. p. 19.) it is in vain to speak of motives to return to our. Communion, to them who have not voluntarily separated, and cannot be admitted to union but upon conditions, which, without dissembling and lying, they cannot under­goe. As for the latter part of this excuse, truly, if motives of union be vain things to be proposed to them, to bring them to Vnion, I must confess I know not what will be likely to doe it. They pretend to think our doctrine erro­neous, our Church fallible, to which therefore they deem it dissimulation and lying to subscribe: what remains then to inform them right, but to propose reasons and motives that that doctrine was true, that Church infallible; & that therefore they might lawfully subscribe with a secure con­science? But Dr. H. will not heare of motives or reasons for Vnion, but sayes, '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 sayes here, that this evasion is necessarily the concluding this Controversy: But why a probability to the contrary should be sufficient to oblige his reason to that his persuasion or assurance, so as there may not subesse dubium against our rule of Faith, acknowledg'd infallible ( Answ. p. 36.) at unawares by [Page 128] himself, that he will never be either able or willing to show. And so for the former pretence, to wit that they separated not voluntarily, it hath already been shown ( Schism Disarm'd, p. 279.) to be a most shameless un­truth; that, by their own occasion, they had voluntarily renounced our Government, Rule of Faith and doctrines; and that there wanted onely the punishment for their for­mer voluntary faults, to wit, the Churche's Excommuni­cation, warning the faithful to avoid their company. So that Dr. H's plea is no other, than as if a Rebel should re­nounce both the Government and Laws of the Land and, being out-law'd and cut off from the Communion of the good Subjects for these faults, should lay all the blame on the Governours and Iudges, saying, no sedition nor division was made in the Common-wealth, till they out­law'd him and his adherents, and warned the good Sub­jects to live apart from them.

As for those pledges left by Christ to his Church for motives of union, which the Cath. Gent. made one of our advantages, they are these: The submitting to the Go­vernment of one Head and Pastour; the agreeing in one Rule of Faith, to which all our private opinions and de­bates give place as to an infallible Law, to decide al quar­rels about Faith; the multitudes of visible exteriour prac­tices, both in several Sacraments, and also divine Service performed with such magnificence of Ceremonies, last­ly and most especially, the coadunation of all the members of the Church in eating that heavenly food, beleeved by us to be the true and real Body of our Blessed Lord and Saviour. All these and some others are so many ties and tokens, which make the Sons of the Catholick Church take one another for Fellows and Brothers, that is, they are unto them so many motives of Vnion: In all which he is blind, who sees not that our Church hath a most visi­ble advantage over all other. Yet Dr. H. assures us [Page 129] that 'tis in vain to speak of those to him; and why? be­cause his passion and disorder'd affections or Interest have so throughly persuaded him, both without and against Evidence, and two or three odde testimonies, with an Id est in the end of them, without ever considering the im­possibility that Vniversal Attestation should erre, have bred a kind of assurance in him, cui non subest dubium (which is all hee requires for his own or his Churche's cer­tainty of Faith, Rep. p. 16.) that he professes himself in­capable to heare motives and reasons, and that '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 shew for his Crown, and much less any person or persons for any other thing. Now what more manifest, than that we enjoy this acknowledgment of our Adver­saries, to have that this Antiquitie and Possession for ma­ny ages; and that this acknowledgment is a particular ad­vantage to us, since the Protestants have none such from our party, but were ever charged by us of novelty, & a late upstart original, and that in this very point in debate be­tween us? This being plainly there exprest by the Catho­lick Gentleman to be his meaning, Dr. H. first ( p. 20.) shuffles off to Fraternal Communion: next, of a Divine turn'd Lawyer, he cites as an affirmation of the Doctors, presumi malam fidem ex antiquiori Adversarij possessione; which apply'd means thus much, that, they being more anciently in possession, 'tis to be presumed that we usurp't: So that, till he evidence that they were more anciently in possession, his law availes him nothing. In the mean ti­me, let him consider our two advantage; to wit, that we had a Possession acknowledg'd before this present possession of theirs; whereas their pretended possession before ours is [Page 130] in question and controvertible: for, Mr. H. will not say, that he knows the contrary better than his Church does her Faith, which, at best, he confess'd before had but probability of her not erring: now then, that which is a probability onely, is in it's own nature liable to dispute, and controvertible; since it may perhaps be shown false to morrow. Their possession then, pretended to have been before ours, is not onely disacknowledg'd by us, but also in it's own nature subject to dispute: ours before theirs, acknowledg'd, and not capable of dispute. The other ad­vantage we have is, that the pretended usurpation of the Pope, being of a Supremacy over the whole Church and all the Bishops in it, must needs in all reason be most visi­ble to the eyes of the whole world: now, since it is certain, they could never evidence it thus visible, (as appears by their diversities of opinions about it's introduction, to be seen in the Catalogue of Protestancy) that is, they know not when it came in; consequently, this consideration af­fords a certain prejudice against their former possession, and the pretence of the Pope's Vsurpation. For certainly, that Authority which could not be usurp't but most visi­bly, and yet the usurpation is not most visible, was not usurp't at all, but was ever. Wherefore our possession and Authority is iustly presumable to have been cōtinued ever since Christ's time; since the beginning of our Faith could never be clearly manifested, as many Protestant Authours beyond exception confess, and onely some of them, dri­ven to that desperate task by our arguments, blindly pre­tend the contrary: whereas their bearing sway in this cor­ner of the world is of confest and known original, which differences us from them by a most manifest advantage.

The persuasion of Infallibility (our fourth advantage ( p. 21.) there mention'd) must necessarily be mistaken and wrong apprehended as well as it's fellows: that is now grown ordinary with Mr. H. and so we must not wonder [Page 131] at it I have already shown, that this persuasion is the one­ly means to oblige the Subjects of any Church to Vnity of Belief; nay, that there can be no rational [...]ty to any be­lief at all, where this persuasion of the Churche's Infalli­bility is not found: which being found in no Congrega­tion but that of the Catholick Church, she hath conse­quently an infinite advantage above all others in the no­tion ad nature of a Church, which is to be a conserver of Faith; or rather indeed, it follows hence most evidently, that none other can have the true nature of a Church but her self. Now Dr. H. in stead of telling us I, or no, whe­ther this Persuasion be of such a force as is pretended, in order to the Vnity of the Faithfull, flies off and sayes, this can have no influence upon them; though it be the onely thing which gives fundamentally Being to a Church, as hath been shown: telling us moreover, for our further certainty, that he is sure the Protestants are not so persuaded, nor ever had cōvincing Grounds represented to persuade them of it; referring me to a book of his own, called The View of Infallibility. In answer, I refer him to Rushworth's Dia­logues, and assure him that, if he be not blinded with pre­judice or interest, he may see it there shown as perfectly as that two and three are five: And as for his Book, I find no such worthy stuffe in these, as can invite me to think an hour well spent in perusing that Brother of theirs.

After this, going about to vindicate the uncertainty on the Protestant's side, he runs ( p. 21. 22.) again to their full or verily-persuasion; but never tells us whether this full persuasion of theirs sprung from the light of pure Rea­son, that is, Evidence; or from passion, interest and igno­rance; adding a parallel, of beleeving that King Hen­ry the eighth was King of this Nation: the reasons where­of notwithstanding he accounts fallible, because the testi­monies of meer men. Whereas I account it most evident and demonstrable; and promise him to have acquitted [Page 132] himself better than ever Protestant did yet, if he can show me the thousandth part of this Certainty, (which he puts here for a parallel of the Protestant's Vncertainty,) for a­ny point in which they differ from us, that is, for any point which they have not received as handed down by Tradi­tion or Attestation of Fore fathers. For, never let him expect to make a rational man beleeve, that scruing or misunderstanding an odde line or two, glean'd for the non­ce out of Scripture or and old Authour, can by any mul­tiplication arrive to the clearness of the former ample, undeniable, uncontroulable Verdict of witnesses, that King H. the eighth vas King of this Nation: much lesse to that of our Rule of Faith, being an attestion of things infi­nitely more importing, which a multitude incompara­bly more numerous had seen visible in practice; besides other assistant motives implanted by the Apostles (the Holy Ghost especially cooperating) in the hearts of the first faithful, and still continued to this day; which streng­then man's nature to the impossibility of erring in such an Attestation. This vast advantage hath our Rule of Faith over this instance of K. H's reign here: yet I doubt not to affirm, that the testification of the latter renders it de­monstrable; which I thus show.

This undoubted and never yet-denyed persuasion, that K. H. the eighth reigned here, imprinted in the hearts of all in England, not onely attested by all Fathers in that Nation, but even by innumerable multitudes in other Countries, (his foul acts making him famous,) this per­suasion, I say, is an Effect, and consequently sprung from some Cause: but no Cause can be imaginable in reason able either to breed this strong persuasion in such a world of knowing persons, nor bribe so many attesters to a con­spiracy of witnessing such a visible thing, except the Being of King H. and of his Reign: therefore he was, or did reign here; otherwise, this persuasion and attestation had [Page 133] been effects without causes, or (which is all one) without proportionable causes; which being evidently impossible, it is also evident and demonstrable that he did rule in Eng­land. Now, whoever should goe about to answer the ma­jor by putting some Cause as possible to be in it self pro­portionable, and so able to produce this strange Effect, be­sides the Existence of K. H. the eighth; the very posi­tion would disgrace it self and the Authour, when the pro­portions of it's efficacity came to be scann'd and apply'd to the Vniversal and strange Effect spoken of.

Again, should a man consider this ample and uncon­trolled attestation of it, and all the other motives which infer it; as King H's Wives, Alliances abroad, Warres, Acts of Parliaments, Embassadours in all parts, Descent, Apostatizing, together with the infinite multitude of Conveyances, Bonds, Iudgments, Foundations, and in­numerable such other things relating to such and such a year of his Reign; and, after all these fully considered, should notwithstanding seriously express his doubt, that he could not beleeve there was ever any such man: would not all that heard him, justly think him a mad man? If so, then surely he must have renounc't no less than rigo­rous Evidence and Demonstration, (the onely perfect light of Reason) who can deserve justly such a censure. It was therefore rigorously evident and demonstrable, that King H. the eighth was.

Thirdly, if it be not evident and demonstrable, the contrary may possibly be such, (for one side must needs be true & so, all truths being connected, in it'ts own nature demonstrable:) but it is evidently impossible the contra­ry should be demonstrable, or the motives for it show'd not-concluding; therefore they concluded demonstrably. The minor is prov'd clearly: for, first, it is not against any natural Science, and consequently not possibly dis­provable by natural reason; nor yet by any Authority; [Page 134] for, in our case, there is an Attestation for it, uncontrolled by any, either orally or by writing: Wherefore there is left no means possible to goe about to confute it, or evi­dence the contrary; it self therefore is most perfectly and most strongly evident and demonstrable, nay impossible to be deemed or pretended to be shown otherwise. Bring not then, Mr. H. this infallibly-and demonstrably-grounded instance, for a parallel of your vertible and Wind-mill uncertainty; till you can show you can produce the million'th part of that Evidence and certainty: but ra­ther be asham'd to pretend to make head against our Ru­le of Faith, (which is of an attesting Authority incompa­rably more numerous, more clear, and more strongly sup­ported by all kind of imaginable assisting circumstances, than was that now explicated) with obscure or misinter­preted scraps of dead Authours cast into what mold you please by Id est's, self-explications, and voluntary de­ductions, according to the easily-bending nature of words. That is, blush to have renounc't your Reason, in renoun­cing Evidence of Authority; to follow unreasonableness, in assenting upon ambiguous probabilities.

After this, to clear himself from denying Infallibility, which denial was charged, and hath been shown to take away all beleef and ground of Beleef; he tells us, (pag. 23.) It is evident, that beleef is no more than consent to the truth of any thing, and the grounds of beleef, such ar­guments as are sufficient to exclude doubting, to induce conviction and persuasion. But sure Mr. H. forgets what he is about: for to divine beleef, which is commanded by God himself, and so cannot be sinfull, not every consent ought to serve, but a rational one, nor any conviction, but such an one as is rational, that is, grounded upon Evidence of that Authorities veracity, in that which she proposes to be beleeved: which how it can stand with her fallibili­ty in the same point, is past Dr. H's skil to make good, [Page 135] since if it be once known that she can erre in it, it can ne­ver be shown thats he does not, there being no certainer Authority than her self to testify certainly when she hits, and when she failes: for I hope Dr. H. will not say it must be Scripture, without an Interpreter of Scripture, and, if so, who a more certain Interpreter than her self? If he say, she must compare her self with other Churche's, he not onely grants each may erre, but even, ( Repl. p. 15. l. 32.) after recourse had to the said means, he onely puts here, pag. 16. l. 1. that it is not strongly probable that such a Church will erre: so that if she can erre, she does erre, for any thing any body knows.

What follows is onely a trifling defence of himself for his bad disputing. He was accused by us of a Schism twi­sted with Heresy: he defended himself, by alledging that he held not our Church Infallible, which he knows we charge upon the deniers as the heresy of heresies. Now his excuse for this Logick is, that he put ( Repl. p. 24.) onely a fiction of case: but 'tis plain he relies upon that fiction as on a real Ground, saying there expressely ( of Schism, p 28. 29.) that he needs give no more distinct answer than this, first, that they not holding the Church of Rome in­fallible, may be allow'd to make some suppositions, &c. Again, he sayes he makes but one, but yet he there puts down four: so that the difficulty is onely this, to determine in whether place he deserves most to be trusted, or which of them is the child of his second thoughts. Lastly, he im­poses falsly upon the Cath. Gentl. ( Repl. p. 26.) that he requires him at the begenning of the dispute to grant the (Chvrch of Rome infallible. Whereas we onely mind him, that since he is accused of a Schism link't with Heresy, he ought to show that his motives bear the weight of a perfect Evidence, notwithstanding the counterpoise of our Rule of Faith, the Churche's Infallibility, and not suppose this first, and then run a Voluntary upon [Page 136] what he had granted himself gratis.

Thus I have given an answer to Dr. H's third Section of his second Chapter, to which he referred me: In which I confess to have been larger than the rigour of answering required: but the point of Power to oblige Beleef was, as I conceived, very important, and well worth clearing; nei­ther do I remember to have read it in any other place fetcht from it's first Grounds, that so I might refer the Reader thither. I have also vindicated the Cath Gentl. something more particularly than I proposed to my self at first, or than was my obligation; which was one­ly this, to clear those passages in him which vere coinci­dent with mine. Hereafter I fear the apprehension of my future prolixity will not let me exceed my first-intended limits.

SECT. 14.
How Dr. H. defends the sufficiency of his Division, char­ged to want the three most principal sorts of Schism, and solely important to the Controversy.

THe third Chapter in his Reply begins with curing his Division of Schism, which was shown by the Cath. Gentl. to want two of it's best limbs, and those too most useful in this present controversy (that, to wit, of Schism from the whole Church, and from Authority of Councils) & also by S. W. to be pittifully maimed of the third, which was against subjection to some one Superiour. His skill employ'd in plastering it comes to this, that all Schism is either in inferiours against Superiours, or in equals against equals (Rep. p. 28.) He should have said against some one Superiour, in the singular; for his Discourse in his book of Schism never look't further; which occasion'd the Cath. Gentleman's calling it Monarchical.

[Page 137] His first excuse for his first fault is, that it is strange to think, that that man who breaks from the whole Church was not comprised in either member of his division, when certainly he is guilty of both. This it is to forget one's Lo­gick: for, let the man be where he will, our question is of the sin, Schism against the whole Church; which is therefore not comprised in any one head, because it is in an higher nature sinfull, and so exceeds it. Sacriledge and Patricide, according to the common notions, are found indeed in every simple theft and murther: but ac­cording to their specifical differences, by which they are distinguish't from them, they exceed them, and so are not compris'd in them. This Particularity then, and Special­ty of schismatical guilt, in breaking from the whole Church, makes a man in a higher and more special man­ner faulty. And this is the reason why we require, that the Specialty of this Schism should (as it ought (be taken notice of, by ranking it in a Special head; which was o­mitted by Mr. H. who talk't onely of the petty Schisms a­gainst some one particular Superiour, not against all in col­lection, nor against the whole Church. And here when he is challenged of it, in stead of showing us that this greater sin is compris'd in one of those lesser heads, he privaricates from the question which is about the sin, and talks of the man; who is compris'd in his Division, for having done another sin, less than this, and not for having done this.

His second excuse, or rather his continuation of the for­mer, is the saddest piece of Logick that ever was read, and begins at the wrong end. He is accused of omitting Schism against the whole Church, and pretends he treated it as involved in another, to wit in Schism against some parti­cular Governour, and Schism against Charity to our E­quals; which he proves in these words, ( Repl. p. 28.) For how can one separate from the whole Church, unless he separate both from his Superiours and equals too? which [Page 138] indeed had been to some purpose, in case he had treated of Schism against the whole Church, and omitted Schism a­gainst some particular Superiour, or against Equals, Otherwise, for this purpose in hand, he must argue in a quite contrary manner, and put it thus; How can one se­parate from a particular Superiour, or from his Equals, but he must in so doing separate from the whole Catho­lick Church? and then the wise argument had evidently bewray'd it's weakness. In a word, either he means by Superiours, some of them onely, and then he runs over boots into a Contradiction, to get out of a less fault, in which he stood wet-shod; for some of them, cannot be a [...], or the whole Church: or if, by Superiours, he means all; then let him show me, that, in his Book of Schism, he hath treated of that which is against all the Superiours of the Church, in any collective sense; if not, then let him confess, without more shuffling, that he treated not of Schism against the whole Church.

As for his omitting Schism against the Authority of Councils, he endeavours to clear it, first, by seeming to doubt whether Councils have any Authority. Durum te­lum necessitas: in another occasion I doubt not but he would extoll to the skies those Councils which deposed a Pope; though now, because he had granted them no Au­thority, in omitting Schism against them, he can shuffle up and down at a cheap rate ( Repl. p. 29. l. 27.) with, If Councils have any Authority; for he is sure, no man can possibly oppose him as long as he sayes nothing positive­ly, but keeps himself within the powerfull spell of an If.

But let us see what follows, if Mr. H. pleases to grant Councils any Authority: then he tells us, that this Au­thority will certainly be reducible to paternal power; mea­ning, of a Priest, Bishop, Metropolitan, &c. and this both in Provincial, National, and General Councils. The rea­son he assignes for his evasion comes to this, that the of [Page 139] fence against the whole was consequently an offence a­gainst any one there residing. True; but must the offence against some one Governour (of which onely he treated) be necessarily an offence against them all, or against the whole Council? otherwise what will it avail him; who is not charged with omitting Schism against any particular Governour, after having put that which is against the whole Church, or the collection of many; but, quite con­trary, which putting down onely the Schisms against par­ticular Governours, and omitting that which was against them as collected in a Council? Did ever man's Reason run counter in this manner, or his insincerity so resolutely persist never to acknowledge any lapse? that, whereas it is as evident as noon-day, that one may dissent from any one Bishop, in his grounds, and yet consent to the rest; still he will needs prove the contrary, and that the disobe­dience to some one sort of paternal Governour, is the dis­obedience to all.

Again, though a Bishop have a kind of paternal Au­thority over a Priest, a Metropolitan over a Bishop, &c. and so the disobedience of these Inferiours would be a­gainst Paternal power (as Dr. H. calls his first Head:) yet what Paternal power hath a Company of Bishops over a single Bishop; or a Council, consisting of three Patriarchs and five hundred Bishops, over one single Pa­triarch? It is evident then, that should this Patriarch rebel against the common decrees of all the rest, he could not be called a Schismatick against Paternal power; and so, according to Dr. H's division, would be no Schisma­tick at all: since there is no Authority there which could be said to be Paternal in respect of him, himself being coequally high, that is, placed in the top of the Ecclesia­stical Hierarchy with the rest of the other Patriarchs, and a Father in an Ecclesiastical sense over all the rest. Their power therefore over him consists in the collective force of [Page 140] so many united; which makes them considerable in re­spect of him, as a whole compared to a part. Now then, since Dr. H cannot even pretend to have treated of a Schism against any collective power, but against an Au­thority consisting in higher rank or degree onely; 'tis most evident to the most ordinary Vnderstanding, that he omitted Schism against Authority of Councils.

After all this adoe he confesses here, ( Rep. p. 30.) that he treated not specially of Schism against General Councils; that is, he confesses his Division of Schism in­sufficient; which was onely objected. No, I had forgot; he onely goes about to give reasons, why he did not treat it more specially: by which pretty expression the good Reader is to be made beleeve, that he had treated of it spe­cially, and onely omitted to handle it more specially; whereas, he purposely and professedly waved the hand­ling it at all in this Controversy; as is to be seen, Of Schism, p. 60. Ad now, (so exquisite is his shuffling art) after he had labour'd to produce proofs, that he did treat of Schism against Councils, he brings his excuses why he did not doe it, ibid. First because Councils were remedies of Schism. But since they remedied them autho­ritatively, and with such an Authority as, in comparison of any one degree of power by him treated, was as it were of an Vniversal in respect of a particular: the Schism a­gainst them was by consequence proportionably (or ra­ther improportionably) greater; and so deserved in all right an eminent place of it's own in his division. Next, be­cause they are extraordinary and not standing Iudica­tures. I answer, they are likewise of an extraordinary Authority, as hath been shown; and therefore could not merit to be slighted by him. His third is, because this was not a constant sort of Schism, but upon accidental emergencies. That is, his treatise of Schism doth not ab­solutely forbid a man to be a Schismatick in an higher sort [Page 141] of Schism, so it happen upon occasion; but takes care first and more specially that he be not a Schismatick in one of those constant sorts of Schism, though it be of far less guilt. His fourth excuse (as I reckon them) is, because they are now morally impossible to be had. Very good: his Church is accused by us of Shism against General Councils alrea­dy past; and Dr. H. in this book entitled their Defence, therefore treats not particularly of Schism against them, because they are morally impossible to be had at present, and for the future: though, towards the end of the world he thinks it probable there may be one: Of which divina­tion of his I can give no better reason than this, that An­tichrist, who is to be then the Vniversal secular Gover­nour, and by consequence, according to Mr. H's, grounds, the Head of God's Church, or Supreme in Ecclesiastical affaires, will doe Christianity that favour as to gather a General Council. This, I say, if any, must be his mea­ning: for the reason given by him here, why they are now morally impossible to be had, is, because the Christian world is under so many Empires; and when they are like­ly to be united into one towards the end of the world, un­less it be under Antichrist, I confess my self unable to prognosticate.

His last excuse is, ( Repl. p. 31. l. 2.) because the Prin­cipal sort of Schism, charged by the Romanists, is the ca­sting out the Bishop of Rome. I answer, that we charge not the Protestant with a simple Schism, but a decompound one, involving also heresy in each of it's parts. First, with a Schism from the whole Church, in renouncing the Rule and Root of all our Faith, Vniversal Oral Tradition of immediate Fore-fathers, and by consequence, separating themselves from the whole Body of the Faithful, as Faith­ful: next, with renouncing the Authority of Councils, proceeding upon this Ground in declaring things of Faith: and lastly, with not onely disobeying, but disacknowled­ing [Page 142] the Authority of the Pope, recommended to us by both the former. And it seems strange that Mr. H. should goe about to clear the sufficiency of his division, by recur­ring to our charging or not charging of Schism: whereas he has not taken notice of any of these three Schisms charged against him; but onely of petty ones against the Paternal power of a Bishop, Patriarch, &c. which may be consistent with a guiltlesness from the other three prin­cipal ones. He promised us in his Answer, p. 8. 9. that he had rescued the Catholick Gentleman's letter from the stran­gling in the birth by the Printer's miscarriages; yet gi­ves it here a privy courteous-discourteous pinch, by putting the Printer's mistake of conciliatory for concilia­ry, to be the Cath. Gentl. pleasure to call it so, pag 31. l. 10. 11. This done, he objects, that this conciliary Au­thority cannot with any propriety be said to be in the dis­persion of the Churches. Nor did the Cath. Gentl. say it was properly so called: it sufficeth us if it be equivalent, as doubtless it is. For a private Bishop or Patriarch is no otherwise a Schismatick against them gathered together, than in dissenting from the joynt-expression of their vo­tes: if then their votes be sufficiently exprest and testify'd, either by communicatory letters, or some other equally-certain way; while they live dispersed; why should not the opposing his consent of theirs be equally a Schism, as when they are united?

But Schism against this Authority of theirs Mr. H. sayes, ( parag. ult.) is most properly comprised under the Head of Communion Fraternal, treated by him Chap. 8. 9. 10. and there called Schism against mutual Charity. Not considering that in the Church there must be unity in the Vnderstandings of the Faithful in a general rule of Faith, as well as of their Wills in mutual Charity; the for­mer also of which belongs to them more particularly as they are Sons of the Church, that is, Faithfull: and con­sequently, [Page 143] there may be several breaches of those two Vni­ties; so that certainly he must be a very proper man in the art of method, who can think that a Schism or breach of the former, is most properly comprised (as he sayes here) under that latter: yet this method Dr. H. will vindicate, as indeed he may doe any thing after his manner. See his confusion for method sake, Schism Disarm'd, p. 230.

To these former objections now rehearsed, he at least pretends an Answer, such as it is; but to other exceptions sufficiently layd home to him, Schism Disarm'd, p. 32. 33. he thought it safest to give none at all. He was asked there, (and I ask him here again) why he omitted Schism against the Head of God's Church? He cannot avoid by saying, that this is not charg'd upon them, it being, as he here confesses, the principal Schism objected, p. 31. l. 2. 3. Will he say it is an usurpation? Let him hold a while, till he hath proved it, and in the mean time let him tell us how hainous a Schism it is, to renounce it without legitimate proof.

Secondly, he was ask't, why, to state things indifferently, he treated not of Schism against the Head of the Church, as abstracted from an Ecclesiastical Governour, (the Pope) and a Secular Magistrate, (the King, Emperour, &c.) for sure the disobeying or renouncing this Head, must needs be a greater Schism than that which is a­gainst those reckon'd up by him, who are all under this Head.

Lastly, he was ask't, why he treated not at least of Schism against the Secular-Ecclesiastical Head, King, Emperour, &c. and let us know what kind of Schisma­ticks we are, for renouncing his Authority in Ecclesiasti­cal matters? His jurisdiction, according to Mr. H. is su­preme in such affaires: since then, the disobeying or reje­cting any Authority takes it's measure of faultiness from the excellency of the Authority it opposes, he ought to [Page 144] have let us know that we were supremely & in the highest manner Schismaticks, for denying the King's Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction. But alas! this aiery Supremacy of Kings in sacred matters is such an addle piece of Ecclesiasticall Authority, that though they pretend it, to avoid the Pope's Iurisdiction, yet (as it appeares) they decline to own it themselves as much as they can, upon occasions; lest, coming to a controversial discussion, it bewray it's weakness by the absurdity of some necessary consequence or other issuing from it. Iustly therefore did Sch [...]sm Dis­arm'd, casting up the account of Mr. H's Division of Schism, (p. 34.) charge him ‘to have omitted the three principal Schisms against Government, and those not onely principal in themselves, but also solely importing the present controversy: and onely mentioning those which were not objected, and so nothing at all concer­ning the question.’

Sect. 15.
With what success Dr. H. goes about to retrench the Roman Patriarchy, and to vindi­cate Ruffinus.

THe next question which comes to be discussed, is, of the extent of the Roman Patriarchy: which the Cath. Gentl. show'd Dr. H. willing to limit, from a word in Ruffinus, so that it should not be extended to all Italy.

That this is the question, is evident, both by bringing Ruffinus his testimony upon the stage, who acknow­ledg'dly spoke of Patriarchal Iurisdiction; as also by Dr. H's words in his Reply p. 33. l. 2. and again, p. 34. l 4. 5.

To avoid the Doctors blundring art, in which he is ve­ry [Page 145] exquisite alwayes, but in handling this question hath excell'd himself: we will clear the way towards the deci­ding it, by premising these few notes.

First, it is agreed upon between us, that the Metropo­litical power is distinct from the Patriarchal, and ( of Schism p. 54. l. 19. 20. and p. 56. l. 5. 6. 7.) of a less Au­thority and extent.

Next, it is affirmed by Dr. H. of Schism p. 55. that the Authority of the Bishop was correspondent to the Defensor Civitatis; that of the Arch-Bishop or Metropolitan, to the President of every Province; that of a Patriarch, to the Li [...]utenant or Vicarius; and in general, that the Ec­clesiastical Order follow'd the Political. This I onely take notice of as an affirmation of his, not granting it to be universally true; nor doth he prove it was so, otherwise than by Origen's saying, It is fit it should be so. For, the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, where this was determin'd, were held long after this Order in the Ecclesiastical Iurisdictions in Constantine's time, of which he speaks here; and so their testimonies rather prejudice it, than prove it: for had it been so universally practiced before, what need was there of ordering it by following Councils▪

These things being so (as is most evident and unde­niable) let us see how incomparably Dr. H. blunders in this question.

His first and fundamental blundering is, that he would conclude against the extent of the Patriarchal power, by impugning the farther extent of he Metropolitical: whose Authority notwithstanding he acknowledged higher, his Iurisdiction larger; as the second note shows. Now, that he indeed impugned a Metropolitical power onely in stead of a Patriarchal, is manifested; both because he impugnes this latter in the 17. parag. ordained to treat of Metropolitical power onely, (his treating of Primates [Page 146] and Patriarchs not beginning till parag. 21.) as is most vi­sible to the Reader's eyes, which Dr. H. would yet de­lude; as also because himself confesses it, of Schism, p. 50. l. 18 19. So that he would conclude against the Patriar­chal power, which himself granted to extend to many Provinces, ( of Schism, p. 56. l. 6.) by arguing against Metropolitical, which himself granted to extend but to one ( of Schism, p. 55. l. 22. 23. and 26.); and so infer the no-farther extent of the former, out of the no-farther extent of the latter, after he had acknowledg'd the former of much farther extent than the latter was Is not this a most shameful and unconscionable sleight, to mingle and jumble two Authorities together for his own ends, in that very Chapter where he pretended to treat of them distinctly?

His next manifold blundering is, to bring testimonies, which he tells the Reader here, ( Rep. p. 32. 33.) manifest­ly distinguish't the Province of the Bishop of Rome, from the Province of Italy; which (he assures us) could not have had truth in them, if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy: and yet not one word is found in any of the testimonies making mention of the Patriarchy, nor yet of the Province of the Bishop of Rome at all: nay the three first onely mention the City of Rome.

The first is this, as cited by himself; ( Rep p. 33.) [...], &c. Let the house be delivered to those to whom the Bis­hop through Italy, and the City of Rome should decree it. The second, [...], &c. The holy Synod assembled from Rome, and Spain, France and Italy The third, foure hundred Bishops, both from great Rome, and from all Italy and Calabria. Now suppose, insisting on the Grounds of mine own cause, I should onely reply that they mention'd Rome in particular for eminency of Authority, not con­tradistinction of it; were it not a thousand times more likely on my side, there being no City particulariz'd but [Page 147] this in the testimonies? for all the rest are Regions or Pro­vinces. Again, were the testimonies most express for the Roman Province; yet if Mr. H. mean't honestly, that is, to speak of the Metropolitical Iurisdiction onely (as he pretended, and as the place properly required,) then what had he concluded? since the proving the Metropoli­cal Iurisdiction less than all Italy, proves not that the Pa­triarchal reach't not much farther. But, to come home to the testimonies, that the Reader may see what a strong disputant Dr. H. is in his own way: I would gladly ask, who told him that the City of Rome ( [...], and [...], The City, &, Great Rome, as it is in the testi­monies) must needs signify so manifestly the whole Pro­vince of Rome? So that, if he infer a Contradistinction, and so a limitation of Iurisdiction from these words; he must conclude that neither the Metropolitical nor Patri­archal Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome reach't beyond it's own walls: which being acknowledg'dly impossible, it is impossible these testimonies should mean a distin­ction of the Bishop of Rome's Authority from Italy, but an Eminency of his Dignity, which occasion'd his particular mentioning. Thus, the very testimonies which he produced against us, will needs speak for us, notwithstanding his prompting them to the contrary.

The fourth Testimony ( ex provinciâ Italiae, Civitate Mediolanensi, ex Vrbe Roma, quod Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provinciâ Romanâ, Civitate Portuensi, &c. is in­deed a fit testimony for Dr. H. to blunder in, being not intelligible in the Latin, and (as he cannot but know) very corrupt: especially being held for such in naming the Bi­shops which met there. And were it beyond exception, yet is it very explicable to mean the Pop'es Metropoliti­cal Iurisdiction, never so much as naming his Patriarchal.

His third blundering is his self-contradiction; a neces­sary evil accompanying always the defence of a bad cause. [Page 148] All his endeavours hitherto had been bent to limit the Pope's Patriarchy to a particular Province of Italy; buil­ding still all the way upon the necessity that the Eccle­siastical Order should follow the Political: yet, treating of Primates and Patriarchs, (of Schism, p. 54.) he gives such doctrine as, upon the same grounds, must needs con­clude that the said Patriarchy did extend to all Italy. He tells us there, that Constantine the great instituted four Praefecti Praetorio; two in the East, as many in the West: of the Western, one at Rome, another at Triers. Now then, let the Ecclesiastical Order (as Mr. H. will have it) fol­low the Political; and we must have some Ecclesiastical Governour at Rome of equally-extended and correspon­dent Authority to the Praefectus Praetorio at Rome, that is, to all Italy at least: This could not be (as he confesses) Metropolitical Authority in the Bishop of Rome; therefore a Patriarchal one. The Pope's Patriarchy then even accor­ding to his own Grounds, included all Italy; nay all the West, except that part which the pretended Patriarch of France must be imagin'd upon the same Grounds to have had. And since the Praefect at Triers was called ( of Schism, p. 54.) Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum, (as Dr. H. con­fesses;) consequently to his Grounds, it must follow, that the Ecclesiastical power corresponding to this Poli­tical must have onely France under him; the other at Rome, all the West besides. So that at unawares, though he will not grant his Patriarchy to extend to the whole West, which is his due; yet Mr. H's own grounds grant the Pope all but France, which is ten times more than the Suburbicarian Province, his former too niggardly allow­ance. If he reply that the Patriarchal power corresponds to the Vicarij onely, and not to that of the Praefecti Prae­torio: then, besides that all his Grounds of the necessary proportion of the Ecclesiastical to the Secular power tot­ter, which hold not in the main subordinate Magistrate, [Page 149] to wit the Praefectus Praetorio, to whom he will have no Ecclesiastical dignity correspond; besides this, I say, his foresaid testimony of Origen cited for him, Reply 14. is absolutely against him. So sad a piece of Scholarship it is to cite Testimonies without first laying Grounds, which onely can make testimonies hang together. Out of which it is evident, that all the strength of his pretended limita­tion of the Pope's Patriarchy, is finally reduced to that Authority from Ruffinus.

Now then as for Ruffinus his testimony, saying that the Bishop of Rome was by the Nicene Canon authoriz'd, Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerere, this being the main business which occasion'd this debate, and gave birth to this imagin'd limitation of the Pope's Pa­triarchate, we shall take a litle pains to fetch it from it's first Grounds, by showing the sense of that Canon: by which will be seen how great a knave this Paraphrast was whom Dr. H. pretends to vindicate. The words of the Council, upon which this Interpreter works are these: [...]. To which I cannot imagin a sense more proper than this, that the Bishops of Egypt, Lybia and Penta­polis should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria, be­cause the Pope had used to hold them for so. The reason of my conjecture is, because the word [...], quando­quidem, manifests that the words following are the reason of the Decree precedent. This being so, who sees not how pittifully this discourse hangs together, that those Bishops shall be under the Patriarch of Alexandria, seeing the Pope hath under him I cannot tell what or whom? whereas (however our Adversaries may pretend the ma­terial sense of one of the parts false, yet) themselves must confess, that there is no difficulty in the formal coherence [Page 150] of the whole, if it be supposed to signify thus, That he shall have those for his Subjects, because the Pope is ac­customed to hold them for such or to judge it so.

This is yet more confirm'd, because in both Languages it is evident that the Latine Hoc and the Greek [...] can­not possibly refer any thing, but the thing decreed; to wit, that the Bishops named should be subject to the Pa­triarch of Alexandria. This explication holding, (and hold it must till Mr. H. can show me a better, that, is, an­other which shall agree better with the words, and make better sense; which will be never) two things follow for us: First, that it was the Pope's custome to handle and judge matters belonging to the Patriarchy of Alexan­dria: Next, that the Council govern'd it self in this im­portant matter by the custome of the Bishop of Rome: Both which infer, in all probability, his higher Authori­ty, and make for us, though intended otherwise.

Some Interpreters indeed are of opinion that this Ca­non was intended to order the Iurisdiction of the Pa­triarchs: but this is a perfect Chimerical imagination, originiz'd from the invētion of those whose hatred against the Church of Rome, occasion'd by their own guilt, made them willing to say any thing in prejudice of Her, though without all Ground either in the letter of the Canon (as hath been shown) or in the history of the Councils: for, nothing is more evident in this latter, than that there was treated in the cause of Meletius Bishop of Licopolis [...]n Egypt, who refused to be subject to the Patriarch of A­lexandria; and therefore that Canon chiefly touches th [...]t Patriarchy, of which also the particulars are there speci­fy'd: nothing being order'd there concerning either An­tio [...]h or the West, but that their priviledges (that is, what by custome they had gotten) should he conserved and con­tinued; [...]. These things stan­ding [Page 151] 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 Schismaticks com­monly make this Interpretation of it: whose opinions were they any thing prejudicial to our Cause, (as they are not, but most weak, being of Adversaries;) yet they are made incomparably weaker by having Ruffinus for their Patron and first Founder of this Interpretation: Who also (to come nearer our question) proceeding upon this former conceit, added the word Suburbicarias, without all Ground or show of Ground; whether out of silliness and ignorance of propriety of Speech, meaning to signify by that word all the Western Churches under the Em­pire of the City of Rome, (whose subjection to the Pope his eyes testify'd and other Schismaticks confess;) or out of knavery and malice, it is uncertain: This, by the way, is certain, that an irregular proceeding and miscarriage, sprung from both, may justly be expected from Ruf­finus.

But, because this language of mine against this Para­phrast may be imagin'd to have sprung from passion, by Dr. H. and some of his particular Friends; who, pro­ceeding upon their Ground of uncertainty and indifferen­cy of Religion, have got a conceit that the preserving of courtesy is more worth than the preserving of souls from eternal damnation; and that, though one who does such a mischief be a knave and a fool both, yet he cannot without incivility and scurrility be shown plainly to be either: again, because Mr. H. is such a veneratour of Antiquity, that he deemes any testimony, nay any one obscure word of any either old-knave or old-fool (pro­vided he lived but in the ancient times) very competent to found his Religion on, and worthy his vindication, so it seem for his purpose: we will see whether the character [Page 152] given Ruffinus by other Authours beyond all exception be more moderate than S. W's, & what unanswerable pre­judices are producible against this Paraphrast & his testi­fication, which Dr. H. here undertakes to vindicate.

First S. Hierom tells us, ( contra Ruff. Apol. 2.) that Ruffinus was excommunicated and cauteriz'd for here­sy, to wit, Origenism and Pelagianism, and that by Pope Anastasius, as appeares both by the letter of the said Pope to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem, as also by the same S. Hierom, (ibid) upbraiding him, that he so fled the judgement of the City of Rome, that he rather [...]hose to abide the siege of the Barbarians (to wit, in Aquil [...]ia, besieged by Alaricus, whither Ruffinus had retired him­self) than the sentence of a peaceable Town. And again, in the same book, speaking of Ruffinus his Confession of his Faith, which he feigned to have been approved by the Bishop of Italy, he asks him how Italy should approve that which Rome had rejected, and how the Bishops should receive that which the Apostolick See had condemned? Ad­de to these (which makes his prejudice most notorious, and so his testimony most invalid) that he writ his Histo­ry after the entrance of Alaricus into Italy: that is, un­der the Popedome of Innocentius, Successour of Anasta­sius: and so had as much reason to write in prejudice of that See, as an incorrigible and obstinate Heretick could have: having been excommunicated by the same See be­fore he writ. Hence it is that he never meets with any oc­casion to speak of the Pope and Church of Rome, but he spits his venome, as may appear Euseb. hist. Eccles. l. 5. cap 24. where, speaking of Pope Victor, he adds of his own, in one place, one whole line, in another two in his prejudice. Is not this then a fit Authou [...] to be first alled­ged, afterwards vindicated by his fellow-brother and Friend Dr. H. who, for no less guilt, stands excommuni­cated by the same Church? Thus much for his passion and [Page 153] prejudice, which make his knavery very credible: now.

Secondly, as for his doltish ignorance, he was the Mon­ster of that and all future ages for eminency in that talent. Some instances of it may be; that he ( in hist. Eccles. Euseb. l. 1. c. 1.) makes of Iames Bishop of Hierusalem, Iames Bishop of the Apostles; of the Greek word [...], which signifies Happy, a Saint by name Maca­rius; of Eusebius of Pamphilus, Heretick and Arian, Pamphilus Catholick and Martyr; of Xystus, Pythago­rian and Pagan Philosopher, Xystus Pope and Martyr; of Chorepiscopus (spoken of by the eighth Canon of the Council of Nice) the vacant place of a Bishop: and such innumerable others; that St. Hierom (ibid.) affirmed him to be so unskilfull in either language, that he was ta­ken for a Greek by the Latines, and for a Latin by the Grecians. Must not he be a very wise man, who sticks not, first to build upon, next to vindicate so wise an Au­thority?

Yet knavery and folly are less intolerable, if practised modestly and warily: but temerity and audacity are the gallantry of Ruffinus his former faults; he practises them when and where he pleases; and so his testimony becomes more perfectly fit for Dr. H's cause. S. Hierom (ibid.) challenges him, that he knew in his conscience, how he ad­ded, detracted, and changed things as he listed. Erasmus, in his Preface upon S. Hilary, sayes that Ruffinus took to himself, not the liberty of an Interpreter, but the li­cence of a Contaminatour of other men's writings. And ( Annot. in Chron. Euseb. anno MMLXV.) Scaliger notes it to be his custom to omit, pervert and change the texts, as he pleased. Lastly, if Dr. H. yet makes account he can vindicate the sufficiency of Ruffinus his Authority against so many opposers; I will adde for an upshot the words of their most famed Daillé, (against whom I am sure he will not take up cudgels; being a person so highly [Page 154] commended by the Lords Falkland, and Dighy,) who ( l. 2. c. 4.) characters Ruffinus to be, an arrant wood­den statue, a pittiful thing, one that had scar [...]e any rea­son in what he said, and yet much less dexterity in de­fending himself. Let the Reader judge then how despe­rate that cause must be, which drives it's Patrons to re­ly upon such a barbarous, heretical, malicious, and silly fellow's Authority; who wanted both ordinary learning, and common honesty, the onely things which can give him any Authority at all; and this in the judgment of persons beyond all exception either of ignorance or pre­judice.

This miserable and ruinous testimony, upon which yet our Adversaries build so much, being resolv'd into the rubbish of Ruffinus his defects; it would not be much amiss to try whether our testimonies for the Pope's Pa­triarchy over all the West be establish't upon better Au­thority, than this which gave the ground of retrenching it to Ruffinus his followers. St. Basil, speaking ( Basil. E­pist. 10.) of him as Patriarch, calls him The Coryphaeus (or Head) of the Western Churches. S. Hierom makes account that, ( Hier. ad Marc. Presb. Celed. Epist. 77.) to be condemned with Pope Damasus & with the West, is the self-same thing. But, because the testimony of Ad­versaries is freest from favour and partiality; the satisfa­ction given by such is much more ample and valid. To these therefore let us have recourse; I mean the Greek Schismaticks: who, though the competition between the Eastern and Western Church provoked them to retrench the Pope's Patriarchat as much as they could possibly ju­stify; yet they freely and ingenuously grant, that it con­tained anciently all the Provinces of Italy, Spain, France, Germany, England, Illyricum Occidentale, under which were understood Dalmatia, Hungary, and other neigh­bouring Provinces.

[Page 155] Our first Testimony shall be that of Nilus, Arch­bishop of Thessalonica (de prim Pap.) in that very book in which he disputes against the Latins. [...]. The Canon of the Council of Ni­ce thinks fit that the rules of the Fathers be confirmed, who have distributed to every Church their Priviledges; to wit, that some Nations be under the Bishop of Alexandria, others under the Bishop of Antioch, &c. and to the Bis­hop of Rome the same is given, to wit, that he govern the Occidental Nations.

The second shal be of Zonaras, a Greek Schisma­tick and Commentatour, living long before Nilus; who, in his exposition of the sixth Canon of the Coun­cil of Nice, (the same to which Ruffinus added his con­ceit of Suburbicarian, and thence gave occasion to his imagin'd limitation of the Pope's Patriarchy, before spo­ken of (hath these words: [...], &c. The Council ordaines that the Bishop of Alexandria have the superintendency of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, [...]: as the ancient custome had given to the Bishop of Rome, to grovern the Provinces of the West.

The third testimony shall be of the same Zonaras, (in Concil. Sard. Can. 5 [...]) which proceeds farther and grants him, over and above all the Provinces of the We­stern Empire, almost all those Provinces of the Ea­stern also which lay westwardly. [...]. [Page 156] To the Roman Church (saith he, writing his Comment upon the fifth Canon of the Council of Sardica) were then subject all the Western Churches, to wit, those of Ma­cedonia, Thessalia, Illyricum, Epirus, which were after­wards subjected to the Church of Constantinople. Here thou seest, Reader, three testimonies, in themselves most ample and express, of Authours beyond all pretence of partiality towards us; whose interest and passion ought rather have obliged them to detract than superadde to the Pope's Iurisdiction. Not were they less secure from opinion of ignorance; the quality of Archbishop in one of them, and of profest Writers for the Greeks in both, rendering them not liable either to exception of supine­ness, or want of knowledge. Iudge then again, how bad that cause must be, which can oblige men, rational enough in other businesses, to refuse assent to a Verdict thus qua­lify'd, and adhere to a bare word, capable of a different (and so unprejudicial) signification, as coming from an Authour so intolerably barbarous as this Ruffinus hath been shown: or, if meant in that stricter signification, can yet claim no credit; as being onely his word who hath been manifested, by witnesses beyond exception, to ha­ve lost his indifferency, sincerity, nay all shame and ho­nesty together with his Faith.

I hope the Candid Reader will gather what stuff is to be expected from that Treatise, de Suburbicariis regioni­bus, which Dr. H. ( Repl. p. 35.) is pleased to call a Tract, and afford it the Epithet of learned: and how wise or sin­cere a person Lescaserius is, though styled here by Dr. H. most Excellent, who undertakes to vindicate this Ruf­finus; but, with such weak arguments, as, were it not out of my way to confute that Treatise, I would undertake to manifest they neither argue too much learning, nor any excellency at all in the study of Antiquity in that point; [Page 157] unless that excellency were corrupted by a passionate in­sincerity: though I know any thing is excellent which makes excellently well for Dr. H's purpose, or does any excellent prejudice to Rome.

Sect. 16.
Dr. H's fruitless endeavours to prove the Pope (as he calls it) no Summum Genus, from the pretended denial of Appeales, and the denial of Names or Titles, as also how weakly he argues against that demonstrably-evident Authority.

THe Pope's Patriarchy being thus limited to litle mo­re than nothing, his chief Pastourship must in the next place be totally annihilated: against which Mr. H. (as the nature of Schism requires) hath so much the grea­ter spite, by how much it is higher in Authority than the Patriarchy. This he doth de professo afterwards: here, on the by onely, ( of Schism p. 59) telling us, that the­re was none over the Patriarchs but the Emperour onely; which he proved, because they use to gather Councils. His Disarmer broke the reeds of the testimonies he produced, by shewing them unable to conclude, unless they prove that the Emperour did it without the Pope's signifying such their desires to them; next, that if they did it with­out this, they did it lawfully; and lastly, that, were both proved, it was not necessarily consequent, that the Pope had therefore no Authority over the Church, since there might be other Acts of Vniversal Authority besides ga­thering of Councils.

For answer, Dr. H. refers me to his Reply, p. 38. where nothing at all is found to strengthen the two former weak­nesses of his consequences: nor yet indeed the latter, since he does not undertake to show that there can be no other [Page 158] Acts of supreme Authority besides gathering of Coun­cils; which if there can, then those Acts can denominate the Pope Head of the Church, notwithstanding the defect in the nor performance of the other; and, by consequen­ce, his argument of not being Head of the Church, from not gathering Councils, is at an end.

Yet something he pretends here, to make good this latter defect; to wit, that this Authority of Convoking Councils is inseparable from the supreme power, is most cha­racteristical of it, &c. Whereas indeed this Convoking of Councils is no ordinary Act of any standing Iurisdi­ction or Government, but an extraordinary affair, sprin­ging from some necessity or extremity; and so, the ne­cessity pressing, may be performed by him or them who can best provide for that extremity: Which, if other cir­cumstances agree, is most fitting to be ordered by the Pope, whose universal superintendency qualifies him for both care and knowledge of the Churche's wants. But if Mr. H. means it is inseparable, so that it cannot be done without the Pope's express and actual orders, or under­taken by any but the Pope himself; he is in a great mis­take: For, it is very well known that in divers cases it is otherwise. As, suppose the See be vacant, or the Pope himself be unsound in Faith, be distracted, or kept in close prison; or in case there be an Anti-pope which makes the title dubious, &c. In which cases the Cardinals have power to call a Council, or the Bishops to assemble them­selves. And, in general, whensoever there is an extremi­ty damageable to the publick, nor possible to be reme­died by him to whom that duty most fittingly (and so, rightfully) belongs; any one that hath sufficient power and skill, let him be Patriarch, Bishop, Prince, or private man, not onely may, but ought apply both, as much as in him lies, to prevent the harme of the publick. 'Tis evi­dent then that the notion of the actual power to gather [Page 159] General Councils, is not the very notion of the Pope's Authority, nor (as Mr. H. expresses it) Characteristical of it, or inseparable from it; since it has been shown, that the one can be without the other.

To this proof from gathering Councils, he proceeds to alledge some Testimonies, ( Reply p. 39) that there was not anciently, (besides the Prince or Emperour) any Su­preme, or (as the Doctor strangely expresses it) any sum­mum genus, and that the Bishop of Rome was not this sum­mum genus. It is a pleasant thing when those men will be nibbling at wit, who never knew how to manage the knack. Would not Supreme Bishop or Governour have served, without being thus unfortunately witty in calling it a Summum genus? and then to tell us, that a particular man is not a Summum genus. When we learn'd Logick, we were told that a Summum genus was perfectly and actually included in every Individual conteined under it: I hope the Pope's power is not found, on this fashion, in every Priest. But let us take a view of his testimonies; which are reduced to two heads: to wit, those which would prove the Pope no Summum genus, from the de­nial of Appeals to him; and those which would conclude him no Summum genus, from titles and names deny'd him.

Those concerning Appeales which must manifest the individual person of the Pope to be no Summum genus, are, First, from the Milevitan Council, (Repl. p. 39. & 40.) forbidding that Priests should appeale to any forrein power, but onely to the African Councils or their own Primates: Secondly, from the Nicen, Can. 5. ordaining, that they who were excommunicated by some should not be received by others: The third, from the Synodical Epi­stle of the African Council to Pope Caelestine, in these words, We intreat you that, for the future, you will not easily admit those who are Excommunicated by us, &c. [Page 160] To these he addes a fourth, from the 34. Apostolick Ca­non, that the Bishops of every Nation must know him that is first among them, and account him their Head.

I answer, that, as for the three first in general, they on­ly forbid the Appeals of Priests from their Bishops, &c. but leave it indifferent whether the Bishops, Arch-Bi­shops, nay Primates themselves may appeale to the Pope: which we make account is a far greater honour to the Pope, than the deciding the inferiour Controversies con­cerning Priests. So that these testimonies argues no more against the Pope's Authority, than it would against the Supreme power of any Prince or secular Magistrate, if the Laws of the Land should forbid Theeves, Robbers, and such inferiours Delinquents, after their condemnation by the Iudges and other inferiour Officers, to appeal to him. Who sees not that there could never be any Government, or Iustice done, if every Priest, though found never so guilty at home by his own immediate Governours, should have liberty granted him to appeal to the Supreme: li­ving, perhaps, in another Country far distant, not skilled in the immediate circumstances, which give the best light to judge of a cause: but receiving his information from letters, perhaps partial, or from heare-say ever uncertain? Again, who sees not that such an easy admittance of eve­ry ordinary Delinquent's Appeal is both most cumber­som, nay impossible, to be perform'd by the Supreme, and very derogatory to the esteem and Authority of In­feriour Officers, without the Conservation of which all Government and Common-good goes to wrack? Iustly then did the Church, in the Nicen Council and elsewhere, for these and many other reasons, ordain, that Priests should make no farther Appeal than to domestick Iudges, the Pope himself being present and consenting to it, yet without detriment to his Authority: since this eases him of cumber, not discredits his power; for it denies not the [Page 161] Appeals even of Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs to him: unless Mr. H. will say, that every consenting upon ratio­nal Grounds not to execute Authory, is to disannul and abolish quite that whole Authority; for he ayms at no less in this worthy Discourse of his upon the said Cita­tions.

And this may suffize in answer to his three first Testi­monies as also to the first of these three in particular; to wit, that they forbid him not to execute an higher strain of power in receiving Appeals of Bishops: and as for the making it unlawful for inferiour Delinquents to appeal to him, it can onely infer necessarily the unfitness that the Pope should execute that Authority, not the want of Au­thority it self.

The second Testimony, that they which are excommu­nicated by some, shall not be received by others, is the one­ly place in this Section most likely to infer the Doctor's Conclusion, that the Popes is not Supreme: which indeed it does most amply, if taken in it's whole latitude and ex­tent; but withall the Doctor must confess that, if it be taken so, it utterly destroys all Government, and his for­mer testimony from the Milevitan Council to boot. For, if those words be universally true, then it is unlawful for a Priest to appeal from his Bishop to an Arch-Bishop, Pri­mate, or Provincial Council (granted in the said testi­mony;) which takes away all Authority in a Superiour over the Acts and Decrees of an Inferiour, and by con­sequence all Government. Now then, since the said te­stimony (which indeed was mean't of the Appeals of Priests, and so is already answerd'd) cannot serve him, un­less taken in it's full extent; nor can it be taken so whit­out subverting all Ground of Government: it follows, that it cannot serve him at all, nor prejudice us. Again, since it cannot be taken as denying Appeals from Subor­dinate to Superiour Governours universally: Mr. H's [Page 162] grounds must make it conclude against us, by making it signify a denial of Appeals to Coequals in Authority one­ly. Wherefore, all it's force is built on this supposition, that the Pope is not Superiour, but coequal onely to a Pa­triarch: so that his Argument is epitomiz'd into this pi­thy piece of sense, as true as the first Principles (which he must suppose to make this proof valid;) that the Pope not being Head of the Church, is not Head of the Church; and then all is clearly evidenced.

The third testimony, We entreat you that you would not easily admit those to your Communion who are excom­municated by us, is so far from gain-saying the Pope's power, that the very expressions of which it is fram'd are rather so many acknowlegdments of it: being onely a re­quest, not that he would not receive their Appeals or admit them at all, much less that he could not, but onely that he would not admit them easily, that is, without due and ma­ture examination of the cause. Now who sees not that an humble desire, that he would not doe it easily, intimates or supposes he had a power to doe it absolutely? This is confirm'd by their subjoyning, as the reason of their re­quest, not because the Pope had no power to admit others, but because the Council of Nice had so decreed: know­ing that it was a strong motive for them, and an obliga­tion in the Supreme Governour to conserve the Laws of the Church inviolate; unless Evidence, that in these Cir­cumstances it crost the common good, licenc't him to use his extraordinary Authority in that Extremity, and to proceed now, not upon Laws, but upon the dictates of Nature, the Ground and Rule of all Laws. So perfectly innocent to our cause are all the testimonies of weight al­ledged by Mr. H. against it; if they be left to themselves, and not inspired with malice by the bad meaning he will needs instill into them, against their own good na­ture.

[Page 163] The fourth testimony is stil 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 Arch-Bishop Head of his Arch-Bishoprick; as well as a Primate Head of his Primacy? Does it then follow, from a Bishops being Head of the Priests in his Diocese, that there is no degree of Authori­ty Superiour to his? yet this, apply'd to a Primate, is all Dr. H's argument to prove none higher than he. But, it is pretty to observe in what strange words he couches his inference from hence; which (saith he, Repl. p. 40.) sure infers, that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely Head of all Bishops. Observe that canting phrase, one onely Head, &c His intent here manifestly was to show no degree of Authority Superiour to Patriarchs: to prove this he alledges this testimony now agitated; and then, because he saw it would not carry home to the mark be aymed it at, he infers warily, that the Pope is not the one onely Head of all Bishops. By which expression he pre­pares an evasion beforehand, when the inconsequence of his discourse from the said testimony shall be ob [...]ected; or else would persuade the unwary Reader, that we hold the Pope so Head of the the Church, as that we admit not Primates to be Head of the Bishops under them: Where­as our tenet is, that as Primates are immediate Heads of the Metropolitans, so the Pope is Head or Superiour over Primates; and by consequence Supreme over the whole Church: yet so Supreme, as he leaves to Subordinate Go­vernours their Headship inviolate over their proper In­feriours.

Thus much to his Testimonies concerning Appeals, His other manner of arguing against the Pop'es Supre­macy or his being a summum genus is, from names and [Page 164] titles deny'd him. The first testimony is from Decret. part. 1. dist. 99. cap. 3. that Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum, vel summus Sacerdos; that the Bishop of the first Seat ought not to be called Prince of the Priests, or Supreme Priest ( which the A­frican Council confirms with, aut aliquid eiusmodi;) sed tantum primae sedes Episcopus, The second is from the same place, cap. 4. Nec [...]iam Romanus Pontifex univer­salis est appellandus. The third, from the Epistle of Pope Pelagius, Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis voca­bulo unquam utatur, &c. No Patriarch must use the title of Vniversal; for if one Patriarch be called Vni­versal, the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest. The fourth is, their thred-bare and often answered testi­mony of Saint Gregory, refusing the title of Vniversal Bishop.

But, first, these testimonies come short of what they are intended for, in this, that none speaks of the right of Iu­risdiction, but onely of names and titles; as appears by the words, appelletur, appellandus, Vniversalitatis vo­cabulo, superbae appellationis verbum, in the testimonies: which denote no exception against any Authority, but against the titular expression of it onely, which sounded proudly, and seem'd inconvenient and new at that time.

Secondly, it is a great weakness in understanding the nature of words, not to advert that the vogue of the world altering from plainess to complementalness, as it does stil daily, the same word may be used without fear of pride at one time, which could not at another; nay the sa­me thing may be fitly signify'd by some word, at some ti­me, which cannot be signify'd by the same at another: as for example, Tyrannus once was proper for a King, ruling according to law and right; which now is not competent but to him who rules arbitrarily against both; or rather indeed, once it signify'd a power, now it signifies a vice.

[Page 165] Thirdly, this seems to have been the case of our word Vniversalis Papa, at least in S. Gregory's time; when that expression, if taken in a due sense, sem'd tolerable, both by the example given in the Council of Chalcedon in or­der to Pope Leo, and also by Eulogius Patriarch of Ale­xundria's letter, giving it to Pope Gregory: but 'twas re­fused by that prudent and humble Pope, because the proud Patriarch of Constantinople usurp't it in an illegiti­mate and intolerable sense.

Fourthly, the sense of that title in the testimonies obje­cted being evidently this, that none could be Patriarchs but himself; as appears by Pope Pelagius his Epistle cited here by Gratian, quia si unus Patriarcharum Vniversalis dicatur, Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur; and the like in S. Gregory's expression to Eulogius, when he re­fused it: this, I say, being evident; and it being on the other side no less evident that our tenet concerning the Pope's Authority is not, that it is of such a nature as de­bars others subordinate degrees, and, in particular, Pa­triarchs and Bishops, to be truly what they are called; it is likewise evident, that our meaning, when we apply it to the Pope, is different quite from the signification the objectors take it in. Now that the Pope's Authority, as held by Catholicks, hinders not others to remain still Patriarchs, is most plain: For, we grant him onely such an higher degree of power over Patriarchs, as an Arch-Bishop hath over a Bishop; from which superiory over them it follows that he is Supreme in God's Church. As then, the placing an Arch-Bishop over Bishops doth not un-bishop them; so neither doth the exalting the Pope's Anthority above Pa [...]iarchal destroy the notion of a Pa­triarch: but each of them retains their compleat limits of Power in the Church, notwithstanding their subordina­tion to their Superiour: and consequently, the testimo­nies are not a jot to the Doctor's purpose; since they de­clare [Page 166] themselves to mean one thing, and he brings them to denote a quite different matter.

Fifthly, had not the Testimonies declared themselves to mean otherwise than we do, yet (to show more the miserable weakness of this testimony-gleaner) it were no such great wonder that S. Gregory (such was his humili­ty) should deny to accept what was due to him. A plain instance of this may be found. 4. Epist. 31. where he de­nyes himself even to be a Priest.

Sixthly, whoever reads his Epistles sent throughout the whole Church, it is impossible but he should see that, however he deny'd the word of Vniversal Bishop, which sounded then proudly, yet he both practised and chal­lenged the thing it self, that is, the Papal Iurisdiction, which we now mean by that word; notwithstanding his profound humility, which made him never desire to stand upon his power, but when it was necessary. A perfect in­stance of this is found, 7 Epist. 65. Ind. 2. where he sayes, Si qua culpa, &c. If there be any fault or crime found in Bishops, that every Bishop is subject to the Apostolical See; but when their fault doth not exact it, (that is, make it necessary for him to use his Authority). that then, upon the account of humility, all were his Equals. See also l. 7. Epist. 64. where he puts it as undoubted, that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolical See; and this to be acknowledg'd by the Emperour and by the Bishop of Constantinople himself. See another most express Testi­mony to the same purpose, lib. 5. Epist 24. to Mari­nianus Bishop of Ravenna.

Seventhly, those words, Ne [...] eti [...]m Romanus Pontifex Vniversalis est appellandus, are not found either in the Council of Ca [...]hage it self, or in the ancient Copies, but are Gratian's addition onely: wherefore they are to be understood in the sense wherein Pope Pelagius took th [...]m; whose Epistle he cites to make good those words.

[Page 167] Eighthly, equivalent terms to what we mean by those words were far more anciently given to the Bishop of Rome Zephyrinus by Te [...]tullian, lib. 1. de pudicitia; where de calls him Pontifex maximus & Episcopus Epi­scoporum.

Ninthly, and lastly, to put this whole business out of doubt, Dr. H's own dear Friend, Balsamon, a Greek Schis­matick, confesses (and surely he knew as well as Dr. H.) that that Title was forbidden, to take away the Arrogan­cy of Names; and that for that reason many Patriarchs did style themselves [...], vile and base. See Bals. in Conc. Carth. 3. Cant. 42. Where, though he mingles so­mething of his own Schism, yet thus far is clear for me, that the name or title was onely treated there, nor the thing or Iurisdiction; about which our controversy being, Dr. H. ought to have brought testimonies impugning it, not a bare name onely.

Calculate these manifold weaknesses, kind Reader, with thy understanding; and then tell me, if it must not be a most desperately▪ weak cause which can drive it's Pa­trons to cast their strongest hopes upon such testimonies, which (to omit other frailties) declare themselves and are confest by our bitterest Adversaries not to mean the thing or Iurisdiction, (the onely matter in debate,) but the Phra­se of titular appellation onely: which shows plainly, that the Objecter's intent was to bring the question of the so­lid power and Authority, into the Logomachy and word­skirmish of an aiery title. So that Dr. H. payes his Rea­der with the same coyn, as that hungry fellow did; who, having satisfy'd himself with the smell of the Cook's meat, pay'd his exacting host with the sound of the money in stead of the substan [...]e.

But now, it being firmly settled by the former frothy Argument, that the Pope had anciently no Vniversal Au­thority; he proceeds to show when this strange Vsurpa­tion [Page 168] impower'd it self over the whole Church. And this he does from Paulus Diaconus, de gestis Romanorum, l. 18. who (as he pretends) tells us, that Boniface the third, with much adoe, obtained an Edict of Phocas the Emperour to that purpose. Where, if he meanes that the name and title, before forbidden, were then first allowed by him; what follows against us, who maintain a real Power, not a verbal title? But, if he means that the Supreme Iuris­diction over the whole Church was then given by Phocas: then, besides that this Iurisdiction we dispute of is over Kings and Emperours, as well as others, in Ecclesiastical matters, and so not likely to be given by Phocas the Em­perour; we must be put to imagin (which will cost us no less then perfect madness, [...]re we shall be able to doe it,) upon the blind and bare affirmation of an obscure Sen­tence, that an Vniversal Government in Ecclesiastical mat­ters over the whole Christian world could be introduc't (nay held o [...] Faith, and to have come from Christ) with­out any visible effects of siding, opposing, deprecating, submitting, complaints, applauses, on the one side and the other; together with change of Ecclesiastical Laws, and the temporal also as concern'd in the Ecclesiastical, and millions of other particular changes included in, and dependent on these general ones; no effect of it at all being notorius, but onely a testimony, (or perhaps two) in a rumour-grounded History-book. If the Doctor would persuade us, that the Supreme Iurisdiction of Rome was then introduc't, let him show effects proportionable to such a novelty of usurpation in things of highest concern­ment; that is, such effects as in all reason were likely to issue out of that cause put: or otherwise, rational Readers must in all reason have leave to think, that he speaks a­gainst all reason. And let him never hope to persuade any man that hath an ounce of brains in his head, though he bring twenty testimonies more valid than this, that an [Page 169] Ʋniversal Iurisdiction in highest matters could creep into the world with pantofles of matt on, without discovering it self in multitudes of circumstances proportionable to its visibleness and weightiness: that is, let him not hope to gul men of reason with words, to deny the light of their reason, demonstrative Evidence. Demonstrative, I say; for I account it as great and firm a Demonstration as any in nature, that it is impossible it should come in unatten­ded by universal and visible changes over the face of the whole Christian world: which I thus show in brief.

The cause was put; to wit, a novelty in the highest de­gree of Government, and in highest matters. The matter to work on was put; to wit, rational Soules or men's minds, because of their diverse dispositions apt to be wrought upon diversly; that is, to be stir'd up to diverse Thoughts, to diverse Passions the result of those thoughts, and diverse outward Expressions the effects of those pas­sions: and all this according to the weight and moment of the cause, which was of the highest nature imaginable. Lastly, the cause was apply'd to the matter: for it is equal­ly impossible, that an universal Government should be brough in, and all not know of it, as that is should at once be and not-be; since it cannot be introduc't univer­sally, without signifying at least to the Subjects either by writing or other carriage, that their obedience is expected. This being so, it is as evident and demonstrable that uni­versal, most visible, and mighty commotions and changes must accompagny such a novelty of Rome's usurpation, as that the effect must necessarily be, when the cause is a­ctually causing: which none ever deny'd, or can, without denying the first principles. Now, add to this, that the Protestant Authours themselves are in twenty minds a­bout the times that this change came in, and that their best Authours beyond exception (of which I remember Doctor Whittaker is one) confess in express terms, that [Page 170] the time of the Romane Churche's change cannot easily be told, and that they cannot tell by whom nor at what time the Enemy did sow the Papist's doctrine, (as may be seen in the Catalogue of Protestancy, where they are cited:) adde this I say, and it follows, that no such visible effects of it's introducing can be shown at all; and consequently, that it was never introduc't. Which as it immoveably strength [...]ns our title of possession, rendring it such as is not onely justly presumable, but necessarily demonstrable, to have come from Christ: so it will also let the rational Protestant Readers see plainly what it is to which their wisest Doctors would persuade them; to wit, to renounce the clear, solid, and certain light of reason, demonstrative Evidence, to follow the obscure, uncertain, and wordish dictionary stuffe of every trifling, controvertible, or (at best) waxen-natur'd Testimony. Yet the Doctor's own words are but these; that Boniface the third, with much adoe, obtained of Phocas the Emperour an Edict for the Primacy and Vniversal Iurisdiction of the Church of Ro­me: See Paulus Diac. de gestis Rom. l. 18 which still is an argument that till then it had no foundation. Where first is to be noted that, of his own good will, the Do­ctor puts in those words, with much adoe; whereas the Authour onely sayes, rogante Papâ, the Pope intreating it. Secondly, that whereas the Authour sayes, Caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum, in his book de gestis Longobardo­rum, l. 4. c. 37. (which Book without controversy is his and plainly sayes, that the Emperour defined that the Ro­man Church was the Head of all Churches;) our Doctor dissembles this, and follows a text out of de gestis Roman. which book is doubted of by learned men to be none of his, and by the very phrase seems to be a corruption of the other, and that ut esset, is put for esse; it being an odd piece of Latin to say, Statuit sedem Romanam ut esset ca­put, whereas a Latinist would have said statuit, sedes ut [Page 171] esset. Wherefore, 'tis evident that the Doctor's great brag­ging that the Story is known to all, is resolv'd into the cor­ruption of an unauthentick text. Which is most evident by the words following in both places of the said Au­thour, Quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se om­nium Ecclesiarum scribebat: which bears no sense, if the Decree gave the Iurisdiction; but an excellent one, if the decree onely defined it against the wrongful challen­ge of the Constantinopolitan Church. Wherefore you see that the Doctors Inference, which yet is an argument that til then it had no foundation, is so wretched, that the con­trary ought to be deduced, tha it is an argument, the Au­thority which Phocas defined to be his, had been his be­fore. And thus much in refutation of Dr. H's Defence of his three first Chapters.

Sect. 1.
Dr. H's prelusory toyes answered. No obligation for Catho­liks to produce Evidence. The infinite Advantages our true Possession hath, and the perfect nullity of their vain­ly-pretended one; together with a most rare sample of his manner of arguing.

Dr. H. in his answer, p. 38. puts a distin­ction of his own endeavours; affirming that he had fûlly answered my fourth Section, & onely saying that he had an­swered the following ones. Among these which are answered onely, my sixth Section is one, which he pretends to have given Satisfa­ction to, Reply c. 3. sect. 2. and 4. where not a word is found in reference to that, but to my first onely, of which he was pleased to make two. This done, he proceeds, upon this mistake of his own and the Printer's mis-ciphe­ring it, to call my sixth the seventh; and to be witty a­gainst me in his dry way, telling the Reader (as if he would let him see that S. W. could not reckon as far as eight) that I have another seventh Section: though both the Errata at the end corrected that small lapse of the Printer, the titles of the Sections in the beginning of the book might have clear'd Mr. H's head in that point, and [Page 173] the first Section immediately going before would have told him (had not he been pleased to mistake it, and di­vide it into two) that the following ought to be the sixth. But nothing could secure. S. W. from the melancholy ca­villing humour of his Adversary: who is so terrible, that the Printer's least oversight, and his own mistake must occasion a dry adnimadversion against S. W. and yet the jest is, he pretends nothing but courtesy and civility; and persuades many of his passionate adherents, that he pra­ctices both in his writings.

For answer then to my first seventh Section (according to Dr. H. but in reality the sixth) he refers me to his Re­ply c. 4. sect. 1 where he answers all but the ridiculous co­lours, (as he says, Answ. p. 38.) which indeed I must say were very ridiculous, as who ever reads Schism Dis­arm'd, p. 41. or his own book p. 68. may easily see: where, after he had spoken of and acknowledg'd King Henry the eighth's casting out the Pope's Authority, it follows in his own words, thus; ( of Schism, p. 68.) First they (the Romanists) must manifest the matter of fact, that thus it was in England: 2. the consequence of that fact, that it were Schism, supposing those Successours of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ: that is, we must be put first to prove a thing which himself and all the world acknowledges, to wit, that King H. the eighth deny'd the Pope's Supremacy, next, that what God bid us doe is to be done, and that the Authority in­stituted by Christ is to be obe'yd. Dr H. is therefore can-did when he acknowledges here that these passages are ridiculous; very unconsonant to himself, when he de­nyes there is the least cause or ground for it in his Tract, whereas his own express words, now cited, manifest [...] and lastly, extraordinarily reserv'd, in giving no other an­swer than this bare denial of his own express words. But, being taken tardy in his Divisionary art, in which it is [Page 174] his cōmon custome to talke quodlibetically; he thought it the wiser way to put up what's past with patience, than by defending it give occasion for more mirth.

But, to come to the point: That which was objected to him by me and the Cath. Gent. was this, That he ex­pected Catholicks should produce Evidences and proofs for the Pope's Authority in England; which task we dis­claimed to belong to us, who stood upon possession, (and such a possession as no King can show for his Crown) any more, than it does to an Emperour or any long and-quietly-possest Governour, to evidence to a known Re­bel and actual Renouncer of his Authority, that his title to the Kingdome is just, ere he can either account him or punish him as rebellious.

In answer, Dr. H. Repl. p. 44. first denies that he re­quired in the Place there agitated (that is, in the begin­ning of his fourth Chapter of Schism) any such thing of the Catholicks, as to prove their pretensions: [...]ut his own express words, of Schism, p. 66. 67. check his bad memo­ry; which are these, Our method now leads us to enquire im­partially what evidences are producible against the Church of England, whereby it may be thought liable to this guilt of Schism. Whence he proceeds to examine our Eviden­ces, and to solve them: which is manifestly to put him­self upon the part of the Respondent, the Catholick on the part of the Opponent; that is, to make us bring proofs, and seem to renounce the claim of our so-qualify'd a pos­session by condescending to dispute it. Whereas we are in all reason to stick to it till it be sufficiently disprov'd, which cannot be done otherwise than by rigorous Evidence, as hath been shown; not to dispute it as a thing dubious: since '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.

[Page 175] To omit, that the evidences he produces in our name are none of ours. For, the onely evidence we produce, when we please to oppose, is the evidence of the Infallibility of Vniversal Tradition or Attestation of Fore-fathers, which we build upon both for that and other points of Faith: nor do we build upon Scripture at all, but as interpreted by the practice of the Church and the Tradition now spo­ken of. Wherefore, since Dr. H. neither mentions, pro­duces, nor solves those, that is, neither the certainty of Vniversal Attestation, nor the testimonies of Scripture as explicable by the received doctrine of Ancestours (which latter must be done by showing that the doctrine of the Church, thus attested and received, gives them not this explication;) 'tis evident that he hath not so much as mention'd, much less produced, or solved our Evi­dences.

Our Doctors indeed, as private Writers, undertake sometimes, ex superabundanti, to discourse from Scripture upon other Grounds, as Grammar, History, propriety of language, &c. to show, ad hominem, our advantage over the Protestants even in their own (and to them the onely) way: but, Interpretations of Scripture thus grounded are not those upon which we rely for this, or any other point of our Faith. So that Dr. H. by putting upon us wrong-pretended Evidences, brings all the question, as is custome is, to a word-skirmish; where he is sure men may fight like Andabatae in the dark, and so he may hap to escape knocks: whereas, in the other way of Evident reason, he is sure to meet with enough. At least, in that case, the controversy being onely manag'd by wit, and carried on his side who can be readiest in explicating and referring one place to another, with other like inventions; it may be his good fortune to light on such a doltish Adversary, that the Doctor may make his ayre-connected discourse more plausible than the others, which is all he cares for: [Page 176] This being a defence and ground enough for his fallible, that is probable, Faith.

Dr. H. defends himself, by saying ( p. 44. (he mean't onely that Catholicks bring Christ's donation to S. Peter for an Argument of the Pope's Supremacy; instancing a­gainst the Cath. Gent. in his own confession, that Catho­licks rely on that donation as the Foundation or cornersto­ne of the whole build [...]ng. By which one may see that the Doctor knows not or will not know the difference be­tween a Title and an Argument. Christ's donation to S. Peter is our title, our manner of trnour, by which we hold the Pope his Successour, Head pastour; not our ar­gument to infer that he is so. 'Tis part of our Tenet, and the thing which we hold upon possession, to be disprov'd by them or (if we see it fitting) to bee prov'd by us: not our argument or proof against them, to maintain it or conclude it so, As a title then we rely and build upon it, not produce it as a proof to conclude any thing from it. And indeed I wonder any man of reason should imagin we did so: since (if he be a Scholar) he cannot but know that we see how, to the Protestants, the supposed proof would be as deniable and in it's self as obscure, as the thing he imagins we would prove by it or infer from it: which he knows every child can tell is against the nature of a me­dium or argument. Yet poor Catholick Writers, from whom Dr. H. has got all the learning, must be imagin'd unacquainted with that trivial toy belonging to the A, B C, of Logick.

Next he goes about to prove our tenour of possession null: which he does most exquisitely, by telling us ( Re­ply, p. 45.) that now they are in possession, and conse­quently, by the force of the Catholicks argument, all argu­ments deducible from thence are lost to him, the prescri­ption being now on the Protestant's side as before on the Catholicks. Where, first he manifestly calumniates the [Page 177] Catholick tenet, calling it prescription: whereas prescri­ption is a title to get a right in that which was known to be none of his before; which is contrary to the profession of Catholicks, who maintain their possession to have been ever from the beginning; and never to have belong'd to any before: so that this is a trick of a cunning shuffling gamester, by changing the name to alter the state of the whole question. But, to proceed with his argument against our possession, which he pursues in these words, And the­re is nothing left the Romanists to plead, but the original right on this side against the violence of the succeding posses­sion. Well done Doctor, still; 'tis the luck of your Argu­ments against us, that they are most proper and exqui­site pleas for all malefactours. Pray lend me your rea­sons a while, and you shall see what work they will make in the world in a short time. Put case then, that a com­pany of Theeves enter into another man's house, and turn­ing him, his Wife and Family out of doors, resolve to settle and nest themselves there: and, knowing the Law will call them to account for turning an inhabitant out of his possession, they hire Dr. H. (of Divine, turn'd Lawyer) to plead for them. The honest Inhabitant pleads posses­sion. Dr. H. replyes, that at this time he hath no possession, but hath lost it and all arguments deducible from thence; and that he hath nothing now left him to plead, but the original right against the violence of a succeeding possession: especial­ly, if the intruding crew have been in it any long time, (though the manner of their violent usurpation were ne­ver so visible and notorious) then Dr. H. pleads prescription in his Clients behalf, and exacts of the honest man to show his original right; which he (his Ancestours having en­joy'd it time out of mind) not being able to manifest, the poore fellow loses his house, and the picaros carry the cause by the vertue of Dr. H's argument against the pos­session of Catholiks.

[Page 178] The same reason would doe the same service to any Quean that cuts a purse, or any Knave that takes a cloak: they are at present, (as Dr. H. tells us) in possession, and the right owner must lose Cloak and Purse both, accor­ding to these new Laws, unless they can prove their ori­ginal right, and show how they came by them: That is, they who are innocent must be treated as if they were guil­ty, and forced to give account how they came by what they formerly-quietly enjoy'd; and the guilty must be treated like innocent persons, and stand secure upon their possession.

To this miserable pass would the world be brought, if men should treat one another as the Protestants treat us in this point; and if they were no more sincere and care­full to look well to their estates, than they are to look to the Grounds of their Faith & their eternal Salvation. The eager adhesion to the former makes them account this treaty foul play, if their temporal livelihoods be con­cern'd; which their negligence of eternal happiness, more obscurely & far-off proposed, makes them willing to think very fair in their debates about Eternity with us.

To make this clearer, and withall to show how paral­lel Dr. H's Possession is to the former unjust ones, and how unapt to parallel, much less to out-vy and disannul ours, as he would have it, we will put them in the bal­lance of reason, and let sincerity hold the scales: premi­sing first, that we both hold, at least Dr. H. grants ( Repl. p. 46. l. 13.) in one place (and that the more ex­press, of the two contradictory ones,) that prescription, in divine and Ecclesiastical things, is of no force: which ma­kes his pretended hundred years in it self useless for any thing in this controversy; it being a Government institu­ted as inviolable by our Saviour, not alterable or alien­able by humane circumstances: which appears to be gran­ted by us both, because they pretend to prove the King's, [Page 179] supremacy and the equality of the Apostles from Scri­pture; we (when we see it fitting) the contrary. This presupposed, let us compare our Possession to their present pretended one. Ours is acknowledgedly ancient; theirs late and upstart. Ours is such as no visible Effects pro­portionable to it's weight can be shown, that is, such im­mediate changes in the world as may justly make it sup­posed an Vsurpation; theirs, manifest in such visible and violent immediate effects, and such consequences of mil­lions of changes, as render it a palpable Vsurpation. Hen­ce ours is obscure in it's original, and at most but contro­vertible that it ever begun: theirs, beyond all controver­sy, new, and of a late original. Practical effects clad in all their circumstances yet remain in the world, to attest their thrusting us out of possession: no such effects alledged of our thrusting them or any else out, except two or three impertinent conjectures, the like whereof may be drawn for any absurdity: and consequently, it is much more impossible we should ever have usurp't, than that William the Conquerour should have impower'd himself over England, without other manifest immediate effects or signs of his newly-introduc't supreme Government there, than that there are two or three dark sentences in the A­pocalyps, which abstracting from antecedents and conse­quents, may be apply'd to it. The whole world agrees of the time and circumstāces of their possession's beginning: of ours our very Adversaries doubt, and are in several minds. Hence ours can justly claim to have come from Christ; that is, to be indeed a Possession, and the sole pos­session in the matter we speak of: their present pretended possession is impossible to be presum'd for such, since eve­ry one knows when it began. Wherefore our Possession is so qualify'd, that, of it self, it can ground a claim, that it came from the Fountain head of all Ecclesiastical pow­er, Christ Iesus; not needing the assistance of another [Page 180] former possession to patch it up: since, no interruption of it being known, it is justly presumed to have descended from Christ, without interruption, the same it is now. Their present Possession cannot of it self even pretend to have come from Christ at all; since it begun lately and, if ta­ken alone, reaches not nor can pretend to reach to the ti­me in which Christ liv'd, but needs to be piec'd with a for­mer imaginary possession antecedent to our pretented u­surpation: Wherefore, this present state of theirs is not capable of any plea of possession at all; not consequently is it at all a truly-nam'd possession, in any other sense than as the having any thing, however it is come by, is call'd a possession. Again, the Pope's possession in England was a quiet one, without any else pretending it but himself, in opposition to him: Theirs was never quietly enjoy'd at all; Catholick Writers in their learned Controtroversies ever pleading the Pope's lawful title, and showing theirs an unlawful and rebellious usurpation: Even this present book I now write attests that the debate is yet on foot, and the pleas so strong on our side, as I dare promise my self so much fruit of my endeavours, that no man living will say they have carried the cause and enjoy it quietly.

Lastly, (not to mention the clear advantages it hath from the testimony of all Antiquity) our Possession is de­monstrated, by the force of Vniversal Attestation, (ac­knowledged by our present Adversary, at unawares, In­fallible) to have come from Christ; at least they must confess that men not meanly learned pretend this, have attempted it, and answered the objections produced a­gainst it by best Protestant wits and strongest Champions. Our Possession then hath for it's coming from Christ ri­gorous Evidence, so held by us; at least, (as our Adver­saries themselves must grant) pretence of Evidence as yet uncontrolled by their party: Whereas the pretended pos­session they enjoy at present is evidently the contrary; to [Page 181] wit, not come from Christ, but begun either in King Henry's or Q. Elizabeth's dayes; nor is it capable at all of pretending Evidence for it's coming from Christ, see­ing it hath Evidence against it's coming from Christ. Now then▪ Prescription here being of no force, their present pre­tended possession is no better than it was after their first three dayes; and our Possession so well qualify'd, theirs so ill, in order to the present matter in hand, as appers by these Parallels: it follows plainly, that they can have no better a plea from their present possession, than the hou­sebreaker, rober, or cut-purse, from the present possession (that is, having) of the things which they lately purloin'd or unjustly took away. It is Dr. H. then, who ( Repl, p. 45.) would give leave to every man to catch and hold what he can; not we, who would onely have every man hold (till rigorous Evidence be brought against his right) those things of which he was found in immemorial, quiet and, in many other respects, so well qualify'd a Posses­sion.

By this the Candid Reader, who pleases to scan over the former parallels, will discover how weak that cause must be, which drives it's Defender to such incomparable absurdities, as to tell us that our possession and all the ar­guments deducible thence are now lost to us, because of their succeding possession: so making their counterfeit pos­session (which indeed signifyes the bare having a thing) preponderate ours, which hath been shown to excel it in such manifold advantages. The charitable non sense that follows I shall not think worth confuting; after I have lay'd open our force of possession, which frees us in reason from the task of arguing, pleading, or opposing; and their no- possession, which obliges them to produce Eviden­ces of our pretended usurpation, and not to expect them from us: This being all that was common to me and the Cath. Gentl. and so all that belong'd to me to vindicate. [Page 182] Nor indeed was it needful for any to add any thing more in answer to this Section. What follows is such pittiful stuff, as would under-value the worth of a piece of paper to vouchsafe it a confute: yet it deserves mentioning as a pattern of Dr. H's wit, and solid manner of argu [...]ng against the Romanists.

First, although he knows, and all the world acknow­ledges, they cast a Papal Authority out of England, and not Patriarchal onely: yet his dinstinguishing art must needs be brought in to blunder, as his custome is, with an If; (p. 46. 47.) If the Pope pretend onely to be a Pri­mate or Patriarch, &c. What If he be? why then he quotes himself to have done strange things against him in his book of Schism; where he tells us he hath evidenced, &c. and sufficiently justify'd their carriage against him: So strongly he disputes against us, and we must beleeve him; and there ends the left leg of his trifling distinction. Next follows the right, and steps in halting with another If: But If the Pope's pretensions be higher, even for the Supremacy it self, &c. as every one knows it was, and consequently his former words were most frivolous. Now let us see what ground this foot of the distinction stands on. It follows (saith he) that, first, I may surely say they were neverbonae fidei possessores of that; & secondly, that the King, by being so is supreme, &c. So that first he overthrew us onely with his own supposition, that the Popes neither exercised nor claimed any power here more than Patriar­chal: next, by his own self-conceit that he had tickled him in that point in his evidencing book of Schism: & thirdly, if the Pope pretends to any Supremacy, he confu­tes him most powerfully by onely telling him, that he may surely say he hath none. And indeed '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 custome hath now made it his proper priviledge.

[Page 183] But now comes the last onset, which massacres all out arguments and Grounds at once, threatning to remove all appearance of reason from this whole exception: which he does 1. by telling us, '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 pittiful, which must be maintain'd by such weak shifts as the begging leave to suppose that all is true which the Patron of it shall please to say. This done, he quotes a book of the ring-leaders of his own Schism, re­printed (as he brags) by one Goldastus (a French Hugue­not) under the title of Opus Eximium: then he modestly commends to us again his own Book of Schism; and so concludes, that he hopes it will suffice. Thus hath Dr. H. remov'd all appearance of our reasons, by the necessity of his having leave to suppose that theirs were convincing, and the quoting a book of his own Folks, which another of the same leaven calls an excellent work. Weighty proofs against us without doubt!

But, because we have open'd these Evidences of his too much; we will fold them up into Logical forme, and there leave them. The Doctor disputes thus, The Pope being onely a Patriarch, I have sufficiently justify'd what was done here in my evidencing book of Schism; therefore he hath no such Authority here: The antecedent is sup­posed as a first Principle known by the light of nature. Next, he argues thus: I may surely say he hath no Supre­macy; therefore he hath none. Lastly, I must have leave to suppose we had convincing reasons for casting him out, and my Companions think the same; Ergo I have removed all appearance of r [...]ason from the Roma­nist's whole exceptions. With such slight talking as this, kind Readers, Dr. H. would gull Souls into Hell; and [Page 184] (which is the misery of miseries) send them thither with non-sense in their Heads.

Sect. 2.
How Dr. H. prevaricates from his formerly-pretende! Evi­dences. His ignorance of the way of interpreting Scri­pture manifested in his groundless explication of The Lot of Apostleship, Act. 1. for a lesser Province.

Dr. H. in his fourth Chapter of Schism, to undo the Pope's Vniversal Pastourshi [...], undertakes to undo St. Peter's first; by showing that his Commission was limited to the Iews onely. To do which handsomly, he would limite the Iurisdiction of each Apostle likewise to certain Provinces; lest his particular pique against the Po­pe's Predecessour S. Peter, should be too notorious, and manifest that his passion had engag'd him in a partiality against that Blessed Prince of the Apostles.

But because this doctrine of the Apostles exclusive Pro­vinces, (as he calls them, Of Schism, p. 70.) limiting their universal Iurisdiction, was so rare a novelty, that blind Antiquity never so much as dream't on't, nor any Authour, that I can [...]ear of, ever so much as nam'd or mention'd it before: he fetches the first root of their pe­digree, their An est, from the words [...], and [...], the lot of Apostleship, and Iudas his pro­per place in Hell; which he will have signify, exclusive Provinces, restraining the Iurisdiction or Power of each single Apostle.

His Disarmer first show'd, then challeng'd him, ( of Schism, p. 47. that his interpretation of the first place, for Exclusive Provinces, (which was his first Evidence, or ‘rather the Ground of his future Evidences) was so strong and unmoveable, that it alone resisted the whole world [Page 185] being evidently opposite to common sence, repugnant expressely to Scripture, injuriously contrary to all Anti­quity, prevaricating from the translation of their own Church, and lastly contradictory to himself.’ The Cath. Gent. calls the interpretations wretched and blasphemous, This was our charge, let us see now his defence.

First, asham'd to father his own Grounds or his own words, ( Answ: p. 38.) he denies that he mean't these for Evidences, or ever thought on them as such. But, God be praised, his own book of Schism is extant, which ( pag. 70.) ends the fourth parag. by professing to offer his E­vidences: after which begins the fifth parag, thus, And first it is evident by Scripture that S. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision or Iews, exclusively to the Vncircumci­sion, &c. and no Evidences from Scripture pretented in the same parag. but these two miserable mistakes of it al­ready noted; from which, Repl. p. 50. l. 11. he pretends to deduce that distinction of Provinces.

Next, he tells us in the same place, that it needed no E­videncing; the thing being evident by it's own light, that the Apostles went not all to one, but disposed themselves over all the world to several Provinces. If this were his so­le intent there, then why did himself professedly go a­bout to evidence, p. 70. l. 4. what he tells us here needs no evidencing? Or, what was his meaning to labour so hard with testimonies and Id ests, from the fifth parag to the twentieth, now by pretending irrefragable, now unque­stionable Evidences, to prove that which he tells us here is evident by it's own light, and needs no other? But indeed that was not his intent then, but to show their Iurisdi­ctions exclusively limited, (as shall be seen:) though in this Book of his second thoughts, preceiving it was impos­sible to make good his proofs or excuse his Id ests, ma­nifested by his Disarmer to be so impertinent; he preva­ricates from the whole question, and relinquishes [...] posi­tion [Page 186] (which, could he have proved it, might have do [...]e him some service) for another which, though granted, does him none at all. For what hurt is it to S. Peter's Head­ship among the Apostles, if some went one way, some another, to preach?

Thirdly, he is terribly rigorous against S. W. in telling him, in the same place, that his seventh Section is borrow [...]d from the Cath Gent. For (besides that the Cath. Gent. puts onely one exception against Mr. H's wrong interpre­t [...]tion of [...], whereas S. W. put seven) no ho­nest man living who is true to his cause, and hath more re­gard to it's good than to an aiery flash of his own honour, will refuse to write to the same sence another hath writ before him, onely because himself was not the first Au­thour or Inventer of that sence; if he sees that neither himself nor any man else could write better upon that point: which were in effect to renounce reason, because it is not originiz'd from his own invention, but proposed first by another. In this manner all Catholick writers bor­row all they write from the Church; striving to come as near her sence and Grounds as they can possibly, and not vainly hugging self-fancied Grounds of their own, as is the Protestant's mode. But this shows what kind of Spirit Dr. H. is of; who thinks it a disgrace to write what one deems truth, if it hap to be the doctrine or sence of another: and account it his onely vain-glorious honour to be the first broacher of new explications of Scripture, and other rare inventions never before heard of Of which humour of his this present point is a pittiful instance, his book of Schism a perfect model, his Folio-Annotations on the Bible ae large Map; as some more prudent Friends of his own complain.

Fourthly, whereas he says here that my seventh Section is answered Repl. c. 4. Sect. 2. 'tis a great mistake; the greater part of my exceptions being not so much as tou­ched [Page 187] there. And surely, it had been a great providence, if going about there onely to answer the Cath. Gentle­man's one exception, he should have answered 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 it self, but hath ordinarily but one of those as it is found in the Context and Syntax with other words. The significations of words are to be found in Dictionaries; the Interpretation of them, as they stand in propositions, depends upon the an­tecedents, consequents, with all the other train of conco­mitant Circumstances: especially upon the import of the whole, and transaction of the business or thing there spo­ken of. Hence, the signification of the words interpreted to be sometimes down-right and proper, sometimes bow'd to a Metaphor, sometimes strain'd to a Catachresis, nay even sometimes taken absurdly and barbarously: so that, though the phrase or word seems oftentimes very odd in it self, if taken alone; yet the circumstances and total im­port of the sense make that acception (though never so improper) altogether necessary. It being possible, even for the best Authour, to mistake, or be careless in the right use of a word; but absolutely impossible and a Contradi­ction, he should not vnderstand his own meaning and in­tention, when he goes about to speak or write.

Hence is evident how litle is likely to be ever con­vinc't, by Grammatical and Critical quibbling upon the dictionary signification of a word: and how litle it con­duces to the interpretation of any place, more than barely to show the possibility that the word may have, in some cases, such a signification; both the possibility, probabi­lity, [Page 188] and certainty that it must have it there; being lest to the present circumstances, and the import of the whole Se­ries of the sense. It being therefore out of question be­tween us and granted, nay asserted and held by us, that [...], if taken in it self, can signify either a lot, or what­ever is obtain'd by lot, whether it be Office, Province, an horse, a bag of money, or whatever else; or whether it be by way of division or without: it is plain that Dr. H. in showing the grammatical signification of the word in it self, hath beat the aire frivolously to no purpose. Nor is his showing it to signify such a kind of lot in other pla­ces of Scripture to any better end: Both because, if the books be writ by several Authours, it may probably have one acception in one, another in another; and perhaps a diverse one in the same: as also, because, however the word can possibly signify a Province obtained by lot, if put in due circumstances; yet, that it can possi­bly have that signification here or in this place, must depend upon the present circumstances and import of that Chapter, or all that belongs to that business: which cir­cumstances not being found in any other place of Scri­pture, the showing the signification of it in other places is litle or nothing to the signification it ought to have in this.

It were good sport fort one, who is at leasure and hath nothing else to doe, to observe what havock this plain Rule of interpreting Scripture rightly would make with Dr. H's critical Folio-Annotations on the Bi [...]le. We shall onely apply it to this present place, and desire the Prote­stant Reader to peruse this Chapter from vers. 15. to the end, where all that belongs to this business is contai­ned; and see whether he can find any ground, or appea­rance of Ground, either precedent in the Apostles inten­tions, concomitant in the transaction of the business it self, or lastly subsequent in the effect of casting lots, why the [Page 189] thing receiv'd by that means should be a lesser province, or that the words [...] should signi­fy so. Of their antecedent intent we have no other no­tice than this (even according to the Protestants own transtation,) that they mean't to make up the number of the Apostles by substituting another in the place of Iu­das) not to go to a lesser Province, but) Act. 1. v. 22. to witness with them the resurrection: which, though all grant it was perform'd by going several ways, yet there is no such thing there exprest, to ground or infer Dr. H's following interpretation, which is all concerns us at pre­sent.

Again, Act. 1. v. 17. the words, For he was numbred with us, signifie that they had reflections on the imper­fectness of their number, and the following words, and had obtained part of this ministery, make it impossible that a lesser province should be there signify'd: for, Iu­das had not obtain'd a lesser province in his life-time, as Dr. H. grants in many places: which is confirm'd by vers. 25. where it is said, that Iudas, by trangression, fell from his part of this ministery and Apostleship. Now, spea­king properly, '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 ministery and Apostleship into which S. Mathias suc­ceeded: but Dr. H. grants, he had not actually before his death a lesser province, but the Office of Apostle onely: therefore those words can with no propriety signifie a les­ser Province, but the Apostolical dignity onely; and so it was the Apostles intention to surrogate S. Mathias one­ly into this dignity.

Next, as for the transaction of the business it self, it was [Page 190] onely performed by casting lots and prayer; no circum­stances imaginable, nor the least word being there favou­rable to this explication, or that can be pretended to fa­vour it: if we omit, as we ought in all reason, the phrases in controversy; for we must not prove the same thing by it's self. To come then to the effect subsequent to the ca­sting of lots; nothing can be invented either plainer in it's self, or more explicative of the former intention. The words are these, the lot fell upon Mathias; and the ef­fect was, that he was numbred with the eleven Apostles. Relate these words to the 17. verse, For he (Iudas) was numbred with us; and to the following verses, import­ing thus much, that Iudas fell, and, by his fall, there wan­ted one of the former Apostolical number: upon this they cast lots, and the result of that action is exprest to be this, that he was numbred with the eleven Apostles. Ioyn the well ordered series of these circumstances together, which the very place it self affords and offers; and tell me good Reader, if it be likely any thing can be mean't by that in­to which they chose Mathias, but the dignity or office of an Apostle: tell me whether it be not a wretched inter­pretation (as the Cath. Gent. call'd dit,) onely upon a pos­sibility that the word, taken in it's self and grammatically, or as found in other circumstances, may have such a signi­fication; to infer, against the whole stream of all the pre­sent circumstances, and without the least Ground or sha­dow of Ground from the place in which '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 criticize upon each particular word taken in it sel; [...], if taken alone, signifies either the lot, or the thing obtained by lot; and in that place it is evident and granted to be the latter: but still 'tis left to be deter­mined by other adjoyning words, what kind of thing this [Page 191] was which was thus obtained. The words joyned with it are these, [...], of this ministe­ry and Apostleship: and by these the general signification of [...] is to be determined; that is, whether it signify a province, or an office. I would ask him then, first, how often he hath read [...] for a place of ministery, or [...] for a place where an Apostle was to preach? Next, I would ask him, what means the word [...], this? which should rather, in all right, have been [...], that ministery, &c. had it related to that province which Iu­das had or should have had; but, being as it is [...], this ministery, what could it mean but the present office of Apostleship, which the Apostles all at that time en­joy'd, from which Iudas fell, and into which S. Mathias succeeded? Lastly, I would gladly know of him, whe­ther [...], &c. part of this ministery or Apostleship, v. 25. do not manifestly signify the same as [...], does here, v. 20 (at least I am sure S. Peter tells us there it does) and whether their own translation do not render this to be an office, Psal. 109. v. 8. Let another take his office? Iudge then, indifferent Reader, what Evidences are to be expected from Dr. H. 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 borrow'd from any other: which poor S. W. as he disgracefully objected to him, is glad to doe, wanting (alas!) Dr. H's miraculous talent of interpre­ting Scripture so as no man living ever did before him; I may adde, nor any wise man will ever do after him.

Sect. 3.
With what weak sleights Dr. H. would underprop his rui­nous explication of [...] (Iudas his place in Hell) for a lesser Province: and how he produces Testimonies importing an evidently-disparate Interpretation for just-the-same with his.

THus much for the first Ground of Dr. H's evidences, from those words, Act. 1. v. 25. That he may take [...], &c. part, or the lot, of this ministery and A­postleship. Now follows the second, and the more famous one of the two, in the same v. 25. [...], from which Iudas) as their own translation renders it) by transgression fell, that he might goe to his own place. Which last words, [...], or his own place, to show there were such things as exclusive provinces, Dr. H. ( of Schism, p. 71.) para­phrases to signify, his own or proper place or assignation for the witnessing the Resurrection, and proclaiming the Faith or doctrine of Christ to the world: Others, and among them the Cath. Gent. and S. W. nay even all the Protestants (as far as I can hear) except Dr. H. make account it si­gnifies Iudas his own place in Hell; and that '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 Iudas; accusing the Cath. Gent. of uncharitableness for interpreting it so, in these words, ( Repl. p. 53.) It was sufficient to say of Iudas that which had been said, v. 16. 17. 18. 19. to set out the horrour of his Fact, and his bloo­dy death; and that he needed not proceed to the revealing of secrets, &c. But I wonder what secret it is to say that [Page 193] Iudas is in Hell, after it had been revealed and pronoun­ced by our Saviour himself ( Io. c. 17. v. 12.) that he was the Son of Perdition, and he had died in despair by his own hands. But let us observe the order of Dr. H's charity: ( Answ. p. 22 l. 16. 17. 18. 19. &c.) he could not retain a favorable opinion of salvation attainable by the maintai­ners of the breach between us (meaning the Pope and Cardinalls, who had pronounced the Sentence of Excom­munication against his Schismatical party,) nor by the Catholick Converts in England; nay, he had decreed and denounced Hell and damnation to S. W. and the Romish Factor, for showing he had forgotten his Accidence and his other toyish weaknesses; yet he would not have us censure Iudas too rashly, or judge him in Hell for betray­ing our Saviour: The likelihood of the others damnation is of no difficulty with him; this he calls a secret; and blames the Cath. Gent. for revealing it.

His second argument is drawn from S. Chrysostom's words upon that place, saying that S. Peter insults not over Iudas, calling him villain or detestable villain, but sets down the fact simply and his present vengeance. To which last words Dr. H. annexes his Corollary; and to make sure work, as before he hath oft confuted us with his own surely, so now he ascertains it with his own sure: His present vengeance, that sure is it (saith he) which befel him in this world. A weighty argument! as if any space of time interven'd between wicked men's death and their being in Hell; and, as if their vengeance of damnation were not ful as present as their temporal vengeance of an ill death here. I am sure the Psalmist Psal. 55. v. 16. in that very place which uses to be apply'd to mean mysti­cally our Saviours words of Iudas, wishes They may go quick into Hell: which expresses a vengeance present e­nough, and earlier than their vengeance in this world, to wish them in Hell before they are dead.

[Page 194] In stead of a third Argument, he would persuade us in courtesy to admit a parenthesis here: his plea for this pa­renthesis is this, because the use of parentheses in Scripture is very obvious: If then the words ( from which Iudas by transgression fell) be pounded up in a parenthesis, so as they may not at all help the signification of their neigh­bours, (which is something too hard dealing,) then he tells us his interpretation is clear and unavoydable. But, what means he when he tells us, that the parenthesis needs no more formall expression than onely by putting a comma after [...]? would he have it a parenthesis or no? A pa­renthesis relates not to the sense of the fore-going nor fol­lowing words; but leaves the sense entire though it be o­mitted: what is within commas onely cannot always thus be omitted, without oftentimes maiming the sense. Again, how must a comma put after Iudas needs make his interpretation so clear and unavoydable; since he knows well that many, both Protestant and Catholick Com­menters put the comma there, and yet avoyd so easily his interpretation, that they never so much as dream'd of it? Lastly, let us remember that a parenthesis leaves the words on either side as perfectly coherent in sense, as if it had never interven'd; and then, let us see how Dr. H. puts his doctrine in practice: To receive (saith he) the lot of his ministery and Apostleship (from which Iudas by trans­gression fell) to go, or that he may go to his proper place. Thus he. Where, to omit that he takes now the liberty of a formally exprest parenthesis, though, while he was begging it of us, he seem'd willing to be contented with a comma onely; to omit this, I say, I would ask this can­did man, who ( Answ. p. 18.) so like a Saint professes his entire desire to speak the full truth of God, why he changes the words this ministery, &c. into his ministery and Apo­stleship? and, if he be loath to answer, I shall do it for him, and tell the Reader he had good reasons to falsi [...]y it. [Page 195] First, because the word [ [...], This] denotes some pre­sent thing; and, no lesser Province being (according to his Grounds) at that time determin'd or present, but the office of an Apostle onely (which he is resolved it shal not signify,) it was therefore good reason he should change This into His. Next, the word This relates to all the words within the parenthesis, & depends upon them for it's si­gnification (as is evident;) and so destroys all his preten­ce to have a parenthesis there; such a kind of reference being against it's nature. Thirdly, the following words do not hang handsomly together with the precedent, unless This be chang'd into His; therefore '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 perform'd for the future, may go can signify futurely, which might go does not, as his An­tagonist Will. Lilly hath told him in his Potential mood. Such another trifling advantage he gaines; by saying that a comma after [...] is already in the printed Copies: had he said, in some printed Copies, he had been more candid; for the words, the printed Copies, import it is so in all that are printed; which is false, it being neither so (to omit others) in the printed Copies of Stephanus nor Arias Montanus, held by themselves to be the best.

His fourth argument is that Hell being the common place of all wicked men, it cannot fitly be exprest with such a double emphasis, as is [...]. I answer first, that there is no double emphasis there; the first [...] being nothing but a plain propositive article. Next, to come to the point; as Son of Perdition is a name for all wicked men, yet apply'd particularly to Iudas by our Sa­viour, he being [...] and in a peculiar and transcen­dent degree such: so, though Hell be the common place of all wicked men, yet it is tmore properly and peculiarly his; [Page 196] his particular wickedness giving him a special title to it. And lastly, who doubts but that Iudas in Hell hath a proper place of his own which no other damned soul hath? So that, as Dr. H. says here, that those words may very fitly be affirm'd of Mathias his province; so his, as it is not any mans else: so I say, with the same reason, that those words may very fitly be affirm'd of Iudas his place in Hell; it being so his, as it is not any mans else. Is not this an und­aunted Adversary, who dares aduenture to come into the lists of disputation, armed onely with such Bull-rus­hes as these?

His last argument, which you must imagin his strong­est, (for art and prudence both require this order) is this, ( Repl. 53) that It is not neer so proper to say, he sin'd to go to Hell; as that the other was chosen and surrogated into Iudas his place, to go to preach to such a quarter of the world. True indeed; for, if it be taken thus maimed and corruptedly as he hath rendered it, it is so far from proper, that it is absurd and non-sense. But, I would know of Mr. H. where he ever found it render'd he sinned to go to Hell, except onely in this present partial translation of his own. Observe, good Reader, the sincerity of this man: the Greek word [...] can signify, if taken in due circumstances, to sin; but, as taken here joyned in construction with [...], from which, it is impossible to sig­nify so, as every man sees; for who ever heard such a phrase as to sin from a thing? Now, what does Mr. H? he leaves out the words, from which, which were necessa­rily conjoyn'd with the rest in construction; and then, (to make the phrase sound absurdly and disgracefully) first, gives the word such and English as was impossible it should bear in that place, (For, what sense make these words, from which Iudas sinned? next, begins the phrase at sinned, (which word he joyns with going to Hell, though in the parag. before he would have had them se­parated) [Page 197] and says, it is not proper to say, he sinned to goe to Hell; whereas 'twas onely his own sly craft, which had made it improper. So sincere was his profession of his earnest desire to speak the full truth of God, that he here purposely annihilates God's word, which is his Truth, and will not let it speak out fully; but first gagges it with a parenthesis; next, cuts out it's tongrue by maiming the Context: whereas, he might have seen it render'd in their own translation, from which Iudas by transgression fell, nay he render'd it so himself before, which will not let ig­norance excuse him; and he knew well enough that the word [...] joyned with [...] signifies plainly departed aside, prevaricated, went aside, &c. and then the sense is no harsher than this, that he went astray from one state to go to another; from the Apostolical office to go to Hell, or from being an Apostle, as our Saviour reprehended him, to become a Devil.

After this rare defence of his blasphemous, crooked, dis­torted interpretation of those words, ( Repl, p. 54.) he ends his Section, praising the said interpretation for innocent, obvious, and far from wrested: and hopes that all this amas­sed together will vindicate it. That is, he dares not even hope that he hath produced any one thing to stand to and build upon: yet (as the wordish side of the Schools hold that Quantity or Divisibility may be made up of Indivi­sibles;) so he thinks an accumulation of weaknesses will make his defence strong, and a great deal of non-sense, if it be amassed together, will compound good sense.

Thus far his Reply proceeds to make good his inter­pretation by reason. Next, in his Answer he endeavours to authorize it by Testimonies; which he braggs of there ( p 39.) to be just the same with the Doctor's, meaning himself.

Not to wrong Dr. H. otherwise than by showing plainly how he wrongs himself, his own credit, and his [Page 198] Readers eye-sight; we will first put down his interpretati­on of [...] in the very place which occasion'd this debate; that afterwards we may show what a [...]yr­gopolynices humour it is in him to brag that his and those are just the same.

The place is, of Schism, p. 70. 71. where he makes [...] the same with [...], rendred by him distributions, lots, or lesser Provinces; and after­wards Englishes the words themselves thus [ his own or proper place or assignation for the witnessing the resurre­ction, and proclaiming the Faith and doctrine of Christ to the world.] A lesser Province, then, or proper place to preach in, is manifestly his sense: wherefore, we must ex­pect the self-same in the testimonies, to wit, a Province or place, otherwise we can do no less than think that Dr. H. would gull us to our faces.

The first testimony, which he sayes (with what truth shall be seen) is perfectly to his sense, is from Theophylact on Acts 1. which I shall repeat, putting Dr. H's own words fully, as I find them in his Answer p. 39. [...], &c. He calls that his own place which Mathias, so as it was just and fit should obtain: For, as Iudas was a stranger to it, ever since he began to be sick of covetousness and trea­son, so it properly belonged to Mathias ever since he shew'd himself worthy of so great an Office. Where we heare no news of a lesser Province at all, as Dr. H. would persuade us to beleeve against our eye-verdict; but of an Office, which Judas had demerited by his former villanies even while he was in it, and Mathias had merited by his worth and desert even before he had obtained it. Now, if a les­ser Province be just-the-same with the Office of Apostle, then Dr. H. hath dealt honestly with his Readers, when he pretended 'twas so.

The [...]econd testimony is introduc't with, The like again (as indeed it is) and borrow'd from Oecumenius, [...], [Page 199] &c. His own place he calls his suffocation, &c. or else Iudas being gone, he, Id est, Mathias may have the place to himself, receving his Episcopacy. So that Episco­pacy, which their own translation (as hath been shown) explicated to be an office, is now become just the same with a lesser Province, or some determinate part of the world to preach in.

The third is put thus; So Didymus; the word [...], place, signifies many things; amongst the rest, an Order, a [...] when we say the place of a Bishop, or of an Elder. Where (to omit the weakness of inferring it signifies so here, from the possibility of it's signifying so in it's self, nay from it's having many significations) Mr. H. makes the order of dignitie to have just the same notion with a local distribution of place, or a lesser Province: which are so not ajot-the-same, that it is as easy to maintain there can be an Hirco-cervus, as that these two notions of different species can be one.

The fourth troops after it's fellows in this form. So the ordinary gloss; ut abiret in locum suum, Id est, sortem Apo­stolicam; That he might go to his own place, Id est, the Apo­stolical lot. But, whether this Apostolical lot were the office of Apostles, as we hold and have proved at large; or a lesser Province, as he holds, and pretends to find it here identically exprest, nothing at all is found in this pla­ce, which the Doctor notwithstanding assures us is just-the-same with the latter.

This done, he triumphs over S. W. most unmercifully, animated by these his just-the-same interpretations. In a word, if he will contend that these Authours give a third explication of the words [...], which neither of us had; I grant it: but, to say it is just the same with his (as Dr. H. does here) is so perfect a piece of abusiveness to his Readers, as will be able ever hereafter to dishear­ten even his best Friends from crediting his bare say­ing, though never so confident and triumphant, who [Page 200] would not have them credit their own eyes.

Were all that hath been said concerning these two mis-explications of Dr. H's duly consider'd, litle would remain to let any man, who hath any tender respect to Truth and God's word, plainly see, they are justly to be styled blasphemous. But, because he will acknowledge no blasphemy at all in them, wee'l show him two. The first is a blasphemy against the honour due to God's word: for sure it can be no less, thus to make a nose of wax of those sacred Oracles; and, that he may maintain per­versly a self-imagin'd conceit of his own, to detort it thus shamefully and pervert it, both without and against all cir­cumstances found in the Context, and all ground any where else, save onely in the brain which bred the Chi­mera. A Reverence, I say, and a tender respect is to be had to God's word; not wresting it to bear testimony to every falshood imaginable, (as it easily may, if treated on this manner,) nor handle it in such a sort as the main­tainers of paradoxes do the testimonies they cite from Authours; which they on set purpose sinisterly (but far more ingeniously and handsomly) mistake, by a pretty fetch to make show of a proof of their merry Theses. The second is a blasphemy against the honour due to Faith; which, being in it's self certain, suffers in it's fundamen­tals, if occasion be given to think it such a weak thing, as either to be built upon or overthrown by such more than frivolous, less than probable, grounds, as are those distorsions of Scripture now spoken of. Will not Atheists and Heathens laugh, to see those that profess Christiani­ty object, against a point held so universally of Faith, as this of the Pope's Headship was, such quod [...]ibetical trash? And, is not Faith it self by such a non-sensical debating it, (should no Profession of Christianity bring better arguments than this Doctor) liable to be imagin'd, by prudent men not yet acquainted with it, an idler and [Page 201] more groundless Story than the very tales of King Obe­ron and Robin Good-fellow?

Two blasphemies then, Mr. H. attend your mis-interpre­tations; I mean, such as Catholicks hold for blasphemies: who defend Faith to be a thing certain, and to have cer­tain grounds; as also that God's word is never to be in­terpreted, but with gravity and seriouness, and, as neer as is in a man's power, to the sense the Context most strong­ly carries; at least, not abus'd and vilify'd by fathering upon it such groundless interpretations; nay treating it in such an irreverent fashion, that there is no position in the world so unwarrantable, absurd, false, and impious, but may, by the same method of groundless criticizing, be de­duced thence: which devolves into this, that God him­self, the Authour of Truth and the expresser of it in the holy Scripture, shall, by this means, become the Father of all falshoods and the Authour of every groundless and non-sensical absurdity. This manner of treating Scriptu­re, then, we Catholicks account in an high degree blas­phemous; nay, to open the way to all blasphemousness: and this, because we do not dogmatize upon it or affix to it any interpretation that we build faith upon, which is not warranted by the Ʋniversal practice of the Church, and our Rule of Faith, Vniversal 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 tenour of his Discourse, the main scope of his most substantial Chapter, and lastly from the whole Question, by denying that he meant or held Ex­clusive Provinces. And how, to contrive this eva­sion, he contradicts himself nine times in that one point.

AT length we are come home close to the question it self, Whether the Pope be Head of the Church; pretended to be evidently disproved by Dr. H. in the fourth Chapter of Schism, by this argument: S. Peter had no Supremacy; therefore his Successour the Pope can have none. The consequence we grant to be valid; foun­ding the Authority of the latter upon his succeding the former: But we absolutely deny the Antecedent, to wit, that S Peter had no Supremacy, that is, supreme power and Iurisdiction in God's Church. Dr. H. pretends an endeavour to prove it in this his fourth Chapter, offe­ring his Evidences for this negative, p. 70. l. 4. First, from S. Peter's having no Vniversal Iurisdiction, (from parag. 5. to parag. 20.) Secondly, (from thence to the end of the Chapter) from his not having the Power of the Keyes as his peculiar [...]ty and inclosure; that is, from his not having them so as we never held him to have had them.

His first Argument, from S. Peter's not having an V­niversal Iurisdiction, proceeds on this manner: that each Apostle had peculiar and exclusive Provinces; preten­ded to be evidenced in his fifth parag. from the words [...], lot of Apostleship, & [...], Iudas his place in Hell: (of Schism p. 71.) that the Iews [Page 203] onely were S. Peter's Province; nay, that but one por­tion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction: that the Gentiles were S. Paul's, &c. and all this undertaken there to be evidenced by testimo­nies from Scripture, Fathers, and other Authours.

What hath been the success of his Evidences from his [...], and [...], hath already been ma­nifested, by showing that he had neither any ground in the place it self to favour his explication of a lesser pro­vince, nor among all the many-minded Commenters on Scripture, so much as one Authority to second it. As for his limiting S. Peter's Iurisdiction to the Iews onely, and S. Paul's to the Gentiles by his pretended proofs; his Dis­armer offer'd him, p. 52. that if, among those many testi­monies he produces to prove it, there be but found any one sentence, line, word, syllable, or letter, which excludes S. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles, more than what himself puts in of his own head, he would be content to yeeld him the whole Controversy; which he vindicated, to the very eyes of the Reader, from every testimony, one by one, alledged by Dr. H. In this manner stood the case then between S. W. and his Adversary: it remains now to be seen what reply he tenders to so grievous, heavy, and unheard-of a charge; and how he can colour a fault so gross, palpable, and visible to the eye of every Reader.

Observe, good Reader, I beseech thee, (whether thou be Catholick, Protestāt, or of whatever other profession) that now the very point of the Controversy is in agitation: For we pretend no tenour for the Pop'es Supremacy, save onely that he succeeds S. Peter, whom we hold to have had it: if then it be evidenced, (as is pretended) that S. Pe­ter had none; the Doctor hath inevitably concluded a­gainst us. Reflect also, I intreat thee, on the grievousness of the charge layd by S. W. against Dr. H. and make full account, (as reason obliges thee, and I, for my part, give [Page 204] thee my good leave) that there must be most open knave­ry and perfect voluntary insincerity on one side or other: and, when thou hast examin'd it well, (I am a party, and so must not be a Iudge) lay thou the blame where thou shalt find the fault. Neither despair that thou hast abili­ty enough to be a cōpetent Iudge in this present contest: here is no nice subtlety to be speculated, but plain words to be read: for, what plainer, than to see whether in the testimonies there be any words limiting the Iurisdiction of S. Peter, or whether they were onely the additions of Dr. H. antecedently or subsequently to the testimonies?

But what needs any Iudge to determine or decide that which Dr. H. himself hath confest here in his Reply and Answer? where seeing it impossible to show any one word, in all that army of Testimonies which he muster'd up there, limiting S. Peters Iurisdiction to the Iews, or excluding it from the Gentiles, which yet was there pre­tended; he hath recourse for his justification to the most unpardonable shift that ever was suggested by a desperate cause: viz. to deny that he mean't exclusiveness of [...]u­risdiction; that is, to deny his own express words, the whole tenour of his discourse there, the main scope and intention of that Chapter' and lastly to change and alter the state and face of the whole Question. This is my pre­sent charge against him, consisting of these foure bran­ches? which if they be proved from his own words, he is judged by his own mouth, and can hope for no pardon, but the heaviest cōdemnation imaginable from all sincere Readers; since it is impossible to imagin a fifth point from which he could prevaricate, omitted by him, and conse­quently, his present prevarication is in the highest degree culpable and unpardonable.

First then, his own express words manifest he mean't Exclusiveness of Iurisdiction. For, of Schism p. 70. he uses the very word exclusively, saying that S. Peter was [Page 205] Apostle of the Iews exclusively to the Gentiles: and, that this exclusiveness was meant to be of Iurisdiction, is no less expressely manifested from the following page; where it is said, that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction, which is seconded by his express words here also, Reply p. 56 the portion of one Apostle is so his, that he hath no right to any other part,—Excludes him from any farther right, &c. and sure if he have no right to preach to any other Provinces, he hath no Iurisdiction at all over them.

Secondly, the whole tenour of the discourse there ma­nifests that he meant exclusiveness of Iurisdiction.▪ Exclu­siveness of Jurisdiction is mentioned by him as the Ground of all his ensuing dispute; as was shown in the foregoing parag. to which we will add his other parallel expressions: The Iurisdiction of that Metropolis belonged to Iames the Iust, and not to Peter: of Sschism, p. 73. S. Paul's inde­pendence on S. Peter: pag. 74. to wit, in Iurisdiction or power. No power can descend from S. Peter to any other, for another great part of the Christian world: p. 80. Had he (meaning S. Peter) any Iurisdiction over the Churches of Asia? p. 83. No other Apostle could countermand S. Paul's instructions, no appeal left, &c. p. 83. S. Peter's bapti­zing in Brittany must in all reason be extended no farther than this his line, Id est, to the Iews which might at that time be disperst there, &c. p. 84. All which render it most manifest, that he meant Exclusiueness of Iurisdiction and power to preach to another line or Province; if there were any tenour or connexion at all in his discourse, and that it rambled not forwards blindly, himself knew not how nor whither.

Thirdly and lastly, not onely the whole Controversy of Schism is about the limitation or illimitation, exclusive­ness or not exclusiveness, of the Pope's Iurisdiction, and [Page 206] the Doctor's tenet, that this Iurisdiction is limited to such an extent, & excluded from the rest of the Christian world, so as he hath no power or command at all over them: but also his present Chapter (4. of Schism) pretends to evi­dence this limitation of his, from the limitation of S. Pe­ter's; as is most visible parag. 6. of the said Chapter, and indeed in each parag. there, to the twentieth. So that, the import of his argument stands thus; S. Peter had no Vniversal Iurisdiction, thefore his Successour the Pope can have none. This being so, who sees not that, since the thing to be infer'd is the Pope's limitation of Iurisdi­ction, as held by the Protestants, that is such a limitation as debats and excludes him from any lawfull power or right at all to intermeddle with more than is his imagin'd Province; and that this inference is built upon his succee­ding a limited Predecessour S. Peter: who sees not, I say, that the Antecedent must mean S. Peter's Iurisdiction was so limited to his supposed Province, that he had no Iurisdiction or power at all to meddle with a Gentile; but that it was against right and vnlawful for him to do so? This therefore is an evidence beyond all shuffling to avoid it, that Dr. H. in his fourth Chap. of Schism, in­tended to prove the Iurisdictions of the Apostles were ex­clusively-limited to their own Provinces; so that they lost all power to preach to another Province: from which Dr. H. prevaricating here, and not defending his testimo­nies produc't there to prove it; it follows that he acknow­ledges S. W. charge to be true; ( Schism Disarm'd p. 52.) that, ‘among those many testimonies he produces to prove it, there is not found any one sentence, line, sylla­ble or letter excluding S. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles; save onely what the Doctor puts in of his own head: as he shews there in each particular alle­gation.’

This being then Dr. H's meaning, till S. W. charge of [Page 207] the perfect dumbness of his testimonies put second thoug [...]hs into his Head; let us see how he waves his own express words and manifest intentions there: which being so perfectly visible, as hath been shown, we may be sure the prevaricating from them can cost him no less than plain self contradictions.

His first self-contradiction is found Answ. p. 38. pa­rag. 2. where he makes the point he was to prove to be no more but this, that the Apostles went not all to one, but disposed themselves over all the world, to several Pro­vinces: By which, meaning, as he must, (for otherwise it cannot be said to be evident by it's own light) that one went to one place, ordinary Province, or region of the world, to preach, another to another, without any relation at all to exclusiveness of Iurisdiction; we have quite lost the question: which was not Whether the Apostles one went one way, another another way, to preach; but, whether S. Peter, and consequently the Pope his Successour, had an Vniversal or limited Iurisdiction, extending his pow­er to all, or excluding it from all but his pittifull Province; as was manifested before, by Mr. H's express words, to have been his meaning.

His second self-contradiction is found in the same place; where he sayes that what was signify'd by [...], (or exclusive Provinces belonging to each Apostle, which was shown plainly before to be his express meaning) is evident by it's own light, and needs no evidencing. And yet, in his book of Schism, c. 4. parag. 4. he set himself very formally to offer his Evidences for that point; and prosecuted his intent, from parag. 5. to the 20. to evi­dence it by such clouds of testimonies, (which he calls Evi­dences, and some of them irrefragable and unquestiona­ble ones) as may very neer, if not perfectly, equal all the rest that are found in his whole book. So that, either he must cōfess he spent the most substantial part of his book [Page 208] to evidence that which needed no Evidencing, but was E­vident by it's own light; or else, (which is the truth of the business) that he hath chang'd the whole question he­re from what it was there: For there it was of Exclusiue Iu­risdiction, and therefore very obscure, needing the pre­tence of many testimonies (though dumbe) and his own Id ests and voluntarily add [...]d words, to make it seem evi­dent; here it is onely of one Apostle going one way ano­ther going another to preach, which indeed needs no evi­dencing, nor was ever in question between us.

His third self-contradiction is, that, notwithstanding his own express words, the scope of his whole Chapter, the tenour of his whole discourse; and the state of the whole question manifesting he both did and could not but mean it of exclusive Iurisdiction, (as hath been most ex­pressely and amply shown;) yet he calls my acception of his words in that sense, my mistake; Answ. p. 39. l. 34. and again, p. 41. l. 7. 8. &c. he complains that S. W. would conclude from his words, that he would have all the Apostles to have several Provinces limiting their Iuris­dictions, & exclusive of one another's right; which he calls there also a mistake and detortion. Where the Reader may see how perfectly he denies his own words of exclu­sive Iurisdiction, and how openly he prevaricates from all the foure formerly-mention'd pretences, shown alrea­dy to have been his own; which were the strongest ries imaginable to bind any man to hold to what he hath said, who had not forsworn all respect to truth or ho­nesty.

His fourth self-contradiction is, that, though in the place now alledged he complains of me, that I would con­clude from his words that the Apostles had Provinces ex­clusive of one anothers right, yet his own plain words, Repl. pag. 56. l. 2. 5. most expressely grant it; where, speaking of those Provinces proper to each Apostle, he [Page 209] hath these words; So his that he hath no right to any other; so his, as excludes him from any farther right. Is not this handsom?

His fifth self contradiction is a very neat one. Accor­ding to this place alledged, S. Peter [...]s Province is so his, as excludes him from any farther right; that is, from any right to Preach to anothers Province; yet in the same, Sect. p 57. l. 18. he grants it lawfull for S. Peter to Preach to Gentiles; that is, to those of Pauls S. Province. Now we duller Souls imagind that right & lawfulness was all one, & that no man could lawfully doe what he had no right to doe, but Dr. H. confronts & counterposes these two identicall notions, by excluding him in one place from right to preach to another Province, & in the other place granting the lawfulness of his preaching to another Province; which being the expresse places in which he goes about to declare his meaning in that point, manifests his tenet to be, that the Apostles might lawfully do what they had no right to do, or might lawfully do against law & right, that is might do it lawfully but could not right­fully, which settles into this elegant Contradiction, that they might lawfully doe it wrongfully. Thus self-unkind Sosia beats himself according as the change of his uncon­stant & phantasticall Grounds puts his mind in severall Shapes.

His sixth self contradiction touches more particularly this point in hand of exclusive Provinces; He tels us ( of Schism, p. 70.) that Authority and Commission was given to all the Apostles indefinitely and unlimitedly, not restrained by Christs words to any parti [...]ular Province; and again ( Repl. p 55.) speaking of the particular assignations of S. Peter to the Iews & S. Paul to the Gentils, he affirms expres­sely, that it was not by any particular assignation of Christ's, but by agreement amongst themselves that this assignation of Provinces was made; yet, the same Author ( of Schism [Page 210] p. 74. l. 4. maintains the direct contrary or rather contra­dictory positionto the forme, saying that S. Paul had his assignation immediately from Christ. So vtterly void of all truth is this Chimera of exclusive Provinces, that the Au­thor of it understands not his own meaning in it, or at least forgets what he said before concerning it when he comes into new circumstances; or rather indeed volunta­rily says any thing according as it sutes best with his occa­sions. Hence, in the former places it fitted his turn to say that the exclusive Provinces or assignation must come from their agreement not from Christ; because he was there to show their Commission & Authority limitted, which, as coming from Christ was held by all to be un­questionably Vniversal; but in the last place, where he had undertaken to shew S. Paul's independence on S. Pe­ter, it favourd more his intent to say, that he had his as­signation imediately from Christ; lest S. Paul should ha­ve any dependence at all on S. Peter, no not euen for consenting to his assignation,

His seventh self-contradiction is, that building upon the words Gal. 2. 7. (the Gospel of the Circumcision is committed to mee, as the Gospel of the uncircumcision to Pe­ter) for the exclusive Provinces of those two Apostles, he by consequence gets all the rest of the Apostles leave to play, since one as he saies is excluded from any right to preach to anothers Province, and there can be no more Provinces or people to Preach to than Iews & Gentiles, which are there distributed between these two Apostles: nor is the word [...], which, according to Dr. H. ( Repl. p. 55.) signifies the Agreement which was to give them exclusive Provinces) applied in the place alledged to any but S. Peter & S. Paul in order to the Iews & the Gentiles. This kinde favour not withstanding done to the rest of the Apostles, he afterwards spoils, by gi­ving them Provinces too; treating them as discourreous [Page 211] Schoolmasters vse to treat their Schollars; that is, first giving them leave to play while the supplicant is present, but, he being gone & the circumstance changed, enjoy­ning them a task as labourious as had been their School exercise it self. When S. Peter's Vniversal Iurisdiction was to be limitted, then it went currant that the Iews were his peculiar Province, and the said place brought to eviden­ce it. But, this once done, he bethought himself that the Power over all the Iews was too much to attribute to S. Peter, and that the Pope might hap to grow proud to suc­ceed a person of so ample an Authoritie: wherefore finding that such and such Apostles preached in such & such a pla­ce to the Iews, he thought it best to call the Iews there their Province; So that good S. Peter (whom all anti­quitie flatterd it seems with the title of Prince or Head of the Apostles) hath allotted him by Christs Head-Steward Dr. H. ( of Schism, p. 71. l. 21. 22.) no more but one por­tion (or a few miserable Parishes) of the dispersed Iews to be under his Iurisdiction But Dr. H. takes it ill ( Answ. p. 42) that I laugh at him for thus treating S. Peter. I Answer, the most ridiculous position that ever was made seriously by any Divine in the world (as is this of exclusive Pro­vinces) is not treated as it deserves unles it be laught at. Next, he tels me that I never offer to consider the allega­tions by which it was made evident. I Answer, sure Dr. H. is a sleep, I considerd in Schism Disarm'd each allegation of his minutely & particularly through six whole Se­ctions, that is from p. 42. till p. 87. & offerd to yeeld him the whole controversie, if he could shew me the least word in any one of them limiting S. Peter's Iurisdiction to any such Province; which he dares not here accept, but de­nies his own words & flies from the whole question as has been shown. Thirdly, he calls my words a calumny, & complains very Soberly that I never relent at it. I Answer that I confesse my ill nature, I never relent into retra­ctation [Page 212] of my tenet upon the persuasion of contradiction. Rhetorick, though oftentimes I may relent into a smi­le, mingled either with pitty, if I see the fault was igno­rance, or else with just zeal & scorn when I see Souls traind to Hell by wilful frauds. Lastly, he asks, upon this occasion, what contradictories may not this wonder-wor­king faculty of S. W's reconcile? I Answer, it cannot recon­cile Dr. H's contradictions here, this being a task beyond miracle, but to return to his self-contradictions.

His eighth is, that whereas ( Repl. p. 57. l. 19. 20. &c.) he would evade his own implicatory position in which he was entangled by telling us, he meant onely that S. Pe­ter's & S. Paul's Provinces were exclusive, when they met at the same City; himself flatly contradicts it in his Book of Schism, p. 84. where Speaking of S. Peters Baptizing & constituting Bishops in Britany, he tels us, it must in all reason be extended no farther then S. Peters line, as he was Apostle of the Circumcision, Id est (saith hee) to the Iews that might at that time be dispersed there. In which place he manifestly makes S. Peter's Province exclusive in Brita­ny, where he never pretends that S. Paul met him; though before he told us that the agreement between S. Peter & S. Paul was onely exclusive when they met at the same Ci­ty, &c. How powerfull & terrible is truth which can dri­ve her opposers to defend themselves by such miserable and weak implications?

His ninth self-contradiction quarrels with both parts of his sixth at once; according to the former part of which S. Paul had not his Province from Christ's assignation, ac­cording to the later part of it he had it imediately from Christ's assignation; yet maugre both these ( Repl. 58. par. 5.) he makes S. Pauls peculiar Province Spring onely from the Iews refusing & rejecting his doctrine; onely, I say; for he affirms there expresly that till the Iews refused & rejected it, he does not betake himself so peculiarly to [Page 213] the Gentiles; whence follows, in all likelihood, that if the Iews had not rejected Christ's doctrine, tenderd by S. Paul, that Apostle had never gone peculiarly to the Gentils, nor by consequence should have had any pe­culiar or exclusive Province at all. Is not this a solid man? To omit that this experiencing of more fruit among the Gentiles then among the Iews is that which S. w. puts for the reason of his peculiar Apostleship & the Appellation of Apostle of the Gentils ensuing thereupon.

These & some others are the self-contradictions with which this Adversary of mine, seing it impossible to shew one word in any testimony excluding & limiting the Iu­risdiction of the Apostles, shuffles to & fro on all sides, that so what ever position he should be challenged with he may slip & avoyd it by shewing (as he easily may) that he said in another place the expresse contrary, and then when he hath done he preaches repentance or else Hell & damnation to his wicked Adversary for calumnia­ting him who thus earnestly desires (for Sooth) to speak the full truth of God (Answ. p. 18.) and that so carefully, that to make sure work, for fear one part of the contra­diction should not be the truth of God, he affirms both; But I hope the Reader will be aware of his shifting weak­neses, & waving all his self said affirmations, his Genti­le non-sence, his pious formalities, will presse him home with this Dilemma. Either S. Peter's Authority was so li­mited by his pretended designation to one Province, as he had no power to preach to another, or it was not but remaind stil illimited & Vniversal, not witstanding this imagind designation; if it remaind stil unlimited and Vniversal, how can the Pope's Authority be concluded limited from his succeeding S. Peter, if S. Peter's remaind ever unlimited? But, if his Authority & Iurisdiction was limited, and that this was the thing to be proved by Dr. H. in his book of Schism, then why does he not vindicate [Page 214] his testimonies from that shamefull charge layd against them particularly by S. W. that there is not one wordin them limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions, but what him­self adds of his own Head? And why does he instead of thus vindicating them here, sometimes flatly deny the question, sometimes shuffle about to blunder a point so clear, at any rate, though it cost him no lesse then such numerous & most palpable self-contradictions, sure the knot must be great which could stand need of having wedges thus driven in point-blank oppositely on both si­des to break it asunder.

Sect. 5.
What multitudes of absurdities and accesse of fresh self-con­tradictions follow out of his newly-invented tenet of Ex­clusivenes of Iurisdiction, then onely when the Apostles met in the same City.

AFter his self-contradictions march his lesser absur­dities, not so bulkie & substantiall ones as the for­mer, yet still his, & too big to bee wielded by any man but Dr. H. nor by him neither, unles the necessity of a bad cause, incumbent on him to defend, had added to him such an increase of strength as vses to proceed from desperation. But, not to take notice of them all, I will onely take that part of his Reply which I find most perti­nent to the point in hand, & then see what abondance of that kind of fruit it bears

In his Reply therefore, p. 57. I find these words; I have sufficiently exprest (tract. of Schism c. 4. p. 7.) how far this agreement extended, & how far exclusive it was; not that it should be unlawful for Peter to preach to a Gentil, or for Paul to a Iew; but h [...]at when they m [...]t at the same City (as at An­tioch certainly they did, and at Rome also I make no que­stion) [Page 215] then the one should constantly apply himself to the Iews, receive Disciples, form them into a Church, leave them to be governed by a Bishop of his assignation, and the other should doe in like manner to the Gentiles. Thus he very pithily: let us unfold & lay open what he has (as his custome is) involued here, & see what a heap of weaknesses lies swea­ting there, crowded up in so narrow a room.

First, he brings these words here as an explanation of his meaning, that is, of the state of the question between us concerning how far these Provinces were exclusive: whereas in the place cited ( of Schism c. 4. par. 7.) it is one­ly put as an instance of their imagin'd exclusive Iurisdi­ctions, & introduc't with an Accordingly; not purpo­sely Stating or determining the measure or extent of their agreement; nor is there any expression found there which sounds to this purpose.

Secondly, this Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction, which be­fore made such a loud sound, is now onely come to be such when they met at the same City; &, by consequen­ce, abstracting from that circumstance, S. Peter had Vni­versal Authority: which is a great largness of his towards S. Peter, and I wonder whence this kindnes springs towards the Pope's Predecessor.

Thirdly, since these two Apostles, as far as we hear, never met in any City after this pretended distribution of Provinces save onely at Rome & at Antioch, it follows that, as far as Dr. H. knows, S. Peter's Iurisdiction was universal over both Iews and Gentiles in all the world be­sides; & at all other times except onely those short seasons in which they met together. Fourthly, it follows that the Pope's Authority is not limited save onely where he meets S. Paul or his Successors, (or perhaps, as he needs will have it, S. Iohn) and then I conceive it will be very ample.

Fifthly, since he grants, that both the Congregations [Page 216] of Iews & Gentils were joyned in one under Pope [...]le­ment (of Schism, p. 79.) that Pope by consequence suc­ceeded them both; & so the exclusivenes of S. Peter's Iu­risdiction, when he met S. Paul, cannot possibly infer such an exclusivenes or limitation of Iurisdiction in the now Popes, or the Popes which have been since the ima­gind conjunction of those Congregations▪ however h [...] may pretend it makes against the universal Iurisdictions of those Popes, who preceded Clemens. Thus at unawa­res Dr. H. grants the Pope as much as we desire, & yet very innocently thinks he impugns him; or (as himself expresses it Answ. p. 11.) laies the Axe to the root and stocks up Rome's universal Pastourship.

Sixthly, the question being turned into exclusivenes of Iurisdiction when they met in the same City onely▪ it followes, there is not the least pretence of a testimony from Scripture for this position thus stated; for 'tis no where found nor pretended to be found in Scripture, that their Iurisdictions were onely to be limited, in case of meeting in the same City. So that now the pretence of evidencing from Scripture, which in the book of Schism, made a great noise, is, by this new stating the question, or rather evading it, struck quite dumb.

Seventhly, it is to be observed, he has not a word in any testimony to prove their exclusive Iurisdictions in Rome & Antioch, but onely those which affirmed that they preach't, were Bishop in Rome, & founded the Church in both places: All which might easily be done by a pro­miscuous Authority; nor does he offer one word of proof to underprop his weak testimonies why it could not be thus performed.

Eigthly, his place, in his book of Schism, which he produces for their exclusive Iurisdictions, falls short of what he alledges it for, affirming onely, that when they met at the same City one should constantly apply himself [Page 217] to the Gentiles the other to the Iews. Now the prudent consideration of circumstances may determine one man to doe constantly this thing, another to doe constantly ano­ther thing, without inferring that either of them lost their right to doe the other, by this constancy of action exercised upon this one. By which faltring mistake of his own words we may see, that when he alledges them now, as a sufficient expression of his tenet of exclusivenes, he onely sought to escape from & change his former question; and to evade, by vertue of the more modera­te word [ constantly] which standing in the confines bet­ween exclusivenes & not exclusivenes, might, at a dead litf, by the Midwifry of an Id est, or a criticism, bring forth either signification.

Ninthly, the Iews (according to Dr. H.) being S. Peter's Province exclusively to the Gentiles, & not ex­clusively till they met in one City; it follows that, unles they had met, he had no exclusive Province at all. Hence.

Tenthly, since they agreed upon exclusive Provinces it follows, they agreed to meet at such & such cities, else the bargain of exclusive Provinces had been spoil'd; yet t'is no where read, that ever they made any such agree­ment after this pretended distribution of Provinces.

Eleventhly, put case S. Peter had come to some City two or three moneths. before S. Paul (and we cannot ima­gin their correspondence so precise, nor their imploy­ments other where so indifferent, but this might very ea­sily & very often happen) then it must follow, that that Apostle had universal Authority to preach to both till S. Paul come, nor can we imagin him idle or negligent to doe what good he could to all. Put case then that that Prince of the Apostles, who by one Sermon converted three thousand, should by three months labour there convert twice that number of Gentiles to Christ's faith; to govern whom, the whole Authority over both being [Page 218] yet in his own hands, it is fitting he should use the said Authority in ordaining & constituting Deacons, Priests & for the orderly governing his numerous Converts; and those too, distinct in all points from the Priests of the Gentiles; for Dr. H. grounds interdict them all Commu­nion. (See Sch▪ Dis. p. 64.) Things thus orderd, and the Gentiles setled thus under S. Peter, S. Paul arrives at the City. Then begins the hurliburly. S. Peter's Authority, which before extended to both Nations, begins sudden­ly to feel the cramp & conuulsion-fits, & shrinks up to the Iews onely; &, in all probability, a very few, per­chance twenty or thirty more or lesse may be imagined to live in that City S. Peter's Iurisdiction being thus grown exclusive in respect of the Gentiles, by S. Paul's coming, consequently all the Gentiles formerly converted by him (however addicted to their Apostle, Pastour & more then father S. Peter) must presently change their Master, & doe Homage to S. Paul, acknowledging him their pro­per & now-sole-Governour. The Gentil Priests, ordai­ned before his coming, either may be degraded lawfully by S. Paul, or else submit themselves to him, & receive the approbation of their Iurisdiction from him, as the or­der of Government requires. Moreover, if S. Paul had hap to be alone in the same City before, and to have converted Iews, as his custome was, then the poore Iews must avoyd S. Paul's Congregation & run to S. Peter's Church assoon as hee arrives.

But, to proceed with our case, S. Paul's occasions call him away from that City, and ere he removes Dr. H. as­sures, that he must leave behind him a Bishop of his as­signation, that is, over the Gentiles; then presently we must imagin, that S. Peter's Iurisdiction, which had felt a kind of Winter-Season during S. Paul's residence the­re, hee departing, begins to feel a happy Spring, budding now & Sprouting out a fresh towards the Gentiles. So [Page 219] that now the Scene of Iurisdiction & Government is qui­te changed again, according to Dr. H's grounds; and, were not S. Peter a good man, he might undo all that S. Paul had done, & be revenged on him for coming to the same City where he was to limit his Authority. The Gen­tiles therefore which were converted before by S. Peter, assoon as S. Paul is out of sight, begin to face about again, & S. Peter recovers his own. To work therefore hee­goes, and fals to preach Christ's faith to the Gentiles the second time, which before he durst not; Converts many, & having by this time got power enough to do it, being about to depart leaves a Bishop of his own constituting to govern them; So that we have now got two Gentil Bishops in the same City; and, if Dr. H. say there was not, he must say we are beholding to the Apostles prudence & goodnes for it, not to his grounds of illimited Iurisdi­ction when they met not, & limited, when they met in the same City, which infers they had Authority to do this & many other absurdities, and by consequence his posi­tion in it self destroyes all order both of Authority & Go­vernment.

Again, when they met at the same City, in case a Gen­tile had come to S. Peter & desired to hear Christ's do­ctrine, S. Peter must refuse to teach him it, & send him to S. Paul; telling him it was beyond his power, because S. Paul & he had exclusive Iurisdictions when they met at the same City; or else desiring him to stay till S. Paul was gone away, or else to watch some handsome oppor­tunity when S Paul should go to the next Town, & then he would doe him the favour. And the like must wee ima­gin in case a Iew went to S. Paul Lastly when those two Apostles preach't Christ's faith publikely (as their custo­me was) then, in case S. Peter had spy'd some Gentiles or S. Paul some Iews coming to their Sermon, presently (as if some excommunicated person had come in presen­ce) [Page 220] all must be supposed to be hush't, & the Sermon quasht; else we must imagin that that Apostle civilly ma­kes a parenthesis in his discourse, desiring them to with­draw & retire to the others Congregation, confessing candidly that now that his counter-Apostle meets him in the same city, his Iurisdiction is exclusive, & that he has no power at all to give them any notice of Christ & his Law, but must be forced to exclude them from his Con­gregation. Canst thou refrain smiling, Reader, at such a heap of comical absurdities.

But, to return to the place in his Reply, the source of all these gallant consequences, & to bundle up together the other absurdities in it, which to treat diffusedly were a wearisome & ingrateful task; what meanes, his saying here it is not unlawful to preach to anothers Province, & yet saying ( Repl. p. 56. l. 2.) he had no right to doe it what means his putting here, the meeting in one City to give an exclusive and peculiar Province to S. Paul, whereas he had before (according as it serv'd his turn best) made it come from three other severall causes and some of them contradictories; to wit, imediately from Christ's assigna­tion; not from Christ, but from agreement among them­selves; and lastly, onely from the Iews rejecting & refu­sing him, as hath been shown from his own words befo­re in his sixth & ninth self contradictions? what means his putting here S. Peter's exclusivenes of Iurisdiction to arise from the same circumstance of meeting S. Paul in the same City, & yet ( of Schism, p. 84.) excluding S. Peter from medling with Gentiles in Britany, into which countrye he pretends not to shew S. Paul came, much lesse met him there in the same City? what means his stat­ing here S. Peter's Iurisdiction not exclusive, that is illi­mited till he meets S. Paul, and yet ( of Schism p. 71. l. 21. 24.) stating the same Iurisdiction exclusive to all but one portion onely of the dispersed Iews, without reference at [Page 221] all to S. Paul's meeting or not meeting him, but to the division of places & Provinces onely. Lastly, what mean't he to talk of evidencing his then tenet from Scripture, & yet the exclusivenes of Iurisdiction onely when they met in the same City, not so much as pretended to be shown from Scripture.

These man fest & manifold self-contradictions & heaps of absurdities, shown from Mr. H's own words, will let every rationall man see & make every sincere man ac­knowledge, that he cares not a pin what he saies, nor what non-sence he deludes his Reader with provided he de­lude him civilly, courteously & gentilely; nor what con­tradictions he maintains, so he can but imbosk himself handsomely in them, & hide his head from being disco­vered. Yet he tells us ( Rep. p. 56.) he doubts not to recon­cile all the [...] here, at least that one who hath a greater [...], may do it; and so, fully satisfies his Rea­der, if he will be content with pedantry in Greek, in­stead of plain sence & truth in honest English.

Sect. 6.
The Question concerning his imagin'd Exclusive Provinces stated and cleared. A plain Explication of the place, Gal. 2. upon which hee grounds them.

HAving thus layd open how Dr. H. shuffles about to avoyd the effects of his own position; we will pro­ceed to examin the point it self, and lastly Answer his testi­monies alledged to conclude these exclusive Provinces. Concerning the point it self four positions are to be con­siderd, which may be imagind to concern it; first, that the Apostles went not all one way to preach▪ but one or more one way, others another. The second, that all the Apostles made a positive agreement to goe one or more to such or [Page 222] a Province. The third is, that they so agreed to goe to such & such Provinces, at their present parting as they agreed never to go to any other for the future. The fourth is that their Iurisdiction was included within such a Pro­vince, and excluded from all other imagind Provinces.

The first is evident & confest, but nothing at all to our question which is concerning limitation or illimitation of Iurisdiction; And who sees not how shallow this inferen­ce is; the Apostles went some one way, some another to preach, therefore S. Peter is not Prince of the Apostles, or Head of God's Church; Or thus, the Apostles, who confessedly had their Iurisdictions Vniversall from Christ, thought it more discreet & fitting to goe some one way, some another, therefore their Iurisdictions become limi­ted; which is as much as to say, that when Christ gave to each Vniversall Iurisdiction, & sent them to teach all Nations, he mean't they should all goe one way, for otherwise (according to this manner of arguing) had he meant they should goe severall wayes, it could not con­sist with that present intention of his to give them at that very time universal Iurisdiction.

The second, to wit that they all made a part or positive agreement to goe determinate severall wayes, or to such particular places, is very obscure, & rather related as a thing imagind or opinionated to have been, then asserted and manifested by any authentick proof. Nor does it at all touch our question, which is about Iurisdiction, vnles it can be proved that they made a part of exclusive o [...] li­mited Iurisdiction; Of which nature not the least word o [...] proof has hitherto been produced, not will ever be producible for the future.

The third, to wit, that they made a positive pact for each one or more to go to such determinate places & no other, is yet obscurer & lesse authentick then the former, no exact Itinerary of their travells being extant, much [Page 223] lesse of their non-plus vltra's by pact & agreement, but all the whole busines is left to blind and inconsequent conjectures, according as they were found or obseru'd to haue preach't in one Country, and not obseru'd to ha­ve done so in another, but whether persecution, a mu­tuall war, or conveniency of circumstances dispersed them thus, nothing is or can be concluded hence. Nor, were it all granted, can any inference be grounded upon this, prejudicing our tenet, or even touching our question, which is concerning Iurisdiction; since prudent conside­ration of circumstances might be of force to determin the Apostles to agree that such & such should stay constant­ly in this Province, and nor preach actually in another, without any necessity of their agreeing to limit their uni­versal Iurisdiction given by Christ; and so it cannot bear any shew of inference, that they agreed to limit the po­wer it self, (about which our controversie is) because they agreed to limit the exercise of that power.

The fourth position, which concerns the exclusivenes of their Iurisdiction from all save their own Provinces, & is the onely thing which can seem to advantage Mr. H. or concern our question, which is about the limitation of Iurisdiction, is absolutely false & vterly groundles, not warranted by any one testimony; first invented by Mr. H's fancie, pretended to be evidenced by testimonies in his book of Schism, challenged by S. W. not to have a word concerning it in any one testimony there alledged to prove it; not ownd constantly by Dr. H. in his Ans­wers, but absolutely prevaricated from & deny'd, though at the cost of so many & so grosse self-contradictions; attended on by a troop of absurdities as hath been shown; And lastly not coming home the question neither, as shall be seen hereafter; for what inference is this; Each Apost­le was imediate overseer of his own particular Province, therefore one of them was not over all the rest.

[Page 224] The place from Scripture insisted on to evidence this (for Dr. H in his Answ. p. 38. is of late grown jealous that his [...], and [...] fall short of evidences) is Gal. c. 2. v. 7. 8. 9. 10. which I will first put down as I finde it in their own translation, then explicate it; whe­ther with more consonancy to all circumstances, then Dr. H's, Exclusive Iurisdiction when they met, does, let the Reader judge.

The words, in the place cited, are S. Paul' s & these; When they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me as the Gospel of the Circumcision was to Peter (for he that wrought effectually with Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision, was mighty in me towards the Gentiles) And when Iames Cephas & Iohn who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace which was given unto mee, they gave me & Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the Circum­cision, onely they would that we should remember the poor, &c. This is the place upon which Mr. H. builds his tenet of exclusive Provinces; with what right let this plain & connaturall explication inform the Reader.

Our Blessed Lord & Saviour determined the conver­sion of his elect both of Iews & Gentiles, & had already sent down his holy Spirit upon his Apostles in Hierusa­lem, wher upon their zeal inciting them, & the place they were in giving them occasion, they added, by their prea­ching, multitudes of the Iews to the new-growing Church. Stil the Gentiles, out of Iudea heard no more news, of him than the star led Sages and some straggling prea­chers had told and were ignorant of his heavenly do­ctrine except what rumour might have variously and ob­scurely spread. He chose therefore S. Paul, both for zeal (though hitherto misled) naturall & acquired abilities, as also his being bred among the Heathens being born at Tarsus in Cilicia, fit & proportioned for that end. To him [Page 225] he appeared near Damascus, enlighten'd the eyes of his minde by striking blinde those of his body, made him powerfully his, told him his errand, that he should car­ry his name before the Gentiles: not that his comission should extend to them onely (since the Commission given by Christ to each Apostle is acknowledgedly universall) but that he was by God's all-ordering providence fitted, chrosen & designed more particularly for that end. The former circumstances gave him his addiction, his addi­ction so qualified produced great fruit, & all these toge­ther got him the appellation of Apostle of the Gentiles; particularly such indeed, but not exclusively; it being otherwise evident all over the Acts that he preach't com­monly & earnestly to the Iews. Where he was converted, there he imediately began to preach, & so proceeded in that work, till some began to suspect him & his doctrine as not coming from Christ, because he had not lived & conver'st with Christ, as the other Apostles had. Vpon this he is forc't to come to Iudea to confer his doctrine with the other Apostles and receive their approbations; which they found exact & entire, exprest by those words, nihil comulerunt, they in conference added nothing to me. S. Paul having thus given account of his doctrine, & the efficacie of his preaching to the Gentiles, and the Apo­stles finding that S. Peter was in like manner eminently & particularly efficacious in converting the Iews in Iudea (exprest here in the 8. v.) two things ensved here upon, to wit, that by giving S. Paul the right hand of fellows­hip they acknowledged him a true Apostle, or a fellow Apostle; &, at once determined, that since he thriu'd best among the Gentiles & S. Peter best among the Iews (the greatest harvest of which was found in Iudea) S. Paul should goe [...]ut of Iudea to the Gentiles, & take Bar­nabas with him; S. Peter with therest remain in Judea still to preach to the Iews; and this is all the busines which [Page 226] Mr. H. would make to be an agreement to distribute ex­clusive Provinces.

The meaning then of [ [...], the Circumcision] in the ninth verse to which S. Peter was to apply himself, I take to be Iudea or the Iews there, not those in disper­sion; and of [ [...]] the Gentiles to be those out of Iudea. Now, if this be so then to omit all which hath been said formerly, Dr. H's assigning S. Peter (of Schism, p. 71.) onely the Apostleship of some of the Iews in dispertion, by founding the exclusivenes of his Authoritie upon this place, vanishes into it's original nothing; for, in case any distribution of Provinces be signified here, S. Peters's must be the Iews at home, in Iudea, not those abroad or in dispertion, if [...] denote here onely Iudea, or the Iewes in it.

Now the reasons for this explication of mine, are, first because the efficacie of S. Peter's preaching to the circum­cision had been experienced with in Iudea, S. Paul's over the Gentiles, without Iudea; & consequently their seve­ring themselves, being upon this account, should mean that one should stay where he had experienced such fruit, that is, in Iudea, the other goe where he had found the like, that is, out of Iudea. Secondly, the words very well bear it; since the Iews doe not live vnited in any consi­derable confluence, save in Iudea, nor the Gentiles but out of it, which is the thing that gives a common deno­mination to a people. Thirdly, S. Paul's words, onely they would that we should remember the poore, imediately following, shew plainly the meaning is that he was desi­gned by these words to go out of Iudea, & therefore de­sired to remember the poor which were in Iudea, as he accordingly did, Rom. 15. v. 25. 26. But now I goe to Hie­rusalem to minister to the Saints, for it hath pleased them of Macedonia & Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor Saints which are in Hierusalem. Fourthly, the [Page 227] Phaenomena of all the circumstances favour it. Fifthly the place of Theophylact cited by Dr. H. ( Answ. p. 40.) is expresse for it, [...], &c. S. Paul, be [...]ng come to Iudea, he departed thence, both because he was sent a Preacher to the Gentiles, and because he would not build on anothers foundation. Sixthly, S. Hierome upon that place is most clearly for it; where he makes the sum­me of S. Paul's words to be these, me misit ad Gentes, il­lum posuit in Iudea; he sent me to the Gentiles, & put or placed him in Iudea. Yet Dr. H. from this place gives S. Peter an Exclusive Province, to wit, the Gentiles; nor any Gentiles, but those of the dispersion, out of Iudea onely.

This remaining of S. Peter in Iudea, & S. Paul's remou­all out of it, seemed then best for the present circumstan­ces, but was far from signifying exclusivenes from ano­ther's Province for the future; it being well known that S. Peter preacht out of Judea afterwards, to wit at Antioch, Rome & other places; The summe then of their determi­nation was this that they resolved to do what was most prudent in those circumstances, to wit, that some should stay among the Iews, others goe abroad among the Gen­tiles; which by consequence was onely to consent to do prudently, not to make a formal bargain or pact, much lesse perpetuity of such a pact; least of all does it, even intimate the limitation of power & Iurisdiction, as the question it is produced for, requires it should.

Again this agreement of theirs being nothing but a consenting to that which they judged by circumstances was fore-determined by Gods will, consequently there was no more Exclusivenes after then before their agree­ment, nor their subsequent agreement any farther desi­gnation (as D. H. calls it) in respect of S. Peter & S. Paul, then the antecedent designation by God Almighty; The plain text manifests this most clearly; [ when they saw [Page 228] that the Gospel of the circumcision was committet to me, as the Gospel of the Ʋncircumcision to Peter] where we see their judging it was already so committed is the reason why they decreed it should so remain, and that they should preach still where God had shew'd it his will, by giving such a blessing; which superadds nothing to the former.

Next follows the motive why they judged that there was such a particular Commission, in these words; for he that wrought effectually with Peter to the Apostl [...]ship of the Iews, was mighty in met towards the Gentiles; So that the efficacity of preaching & experience of more ample fruit was their sole motive of the one's thus remaining, the others sending abroad; & not an intention to limit one another's Iurisdiction or assign exclusive Provinces. After this follows the result of their former consideration, in these words, Then they gave to us the right hand of fel­lowship, that we should go to the Vncircumcision, &c. Which expresses no more than this, that one should go one way another betake himself another, as Dr. H. grants else where ( Answ. p. 38.) which how far it is from even tou­ching any Iurisdiction, much lesse from limiting it, eve­ry Child may discern.

Again, to speak properly, & according to the force of the Greek, their going into diverse countries was no part of the agreement, but a pure sequel arising out of convenience. For, dederunt dextras [...], that is, they gave us the right hands of communion or communica­tion, signifies no more then that, by embracing or sha­king hands, they acknowledged us to be of the true faith & of their communion, in respect of which every one sees that the going into diverse places was a meer accident; un­les we will say that S. Peter would not have acknowled­ged his doctrine good, nor receive him into communion but upon promise that he should goe out of Iudea. To [Page 229] omit, that both the scope of S. Paul's journey, & the Scripture's expressing that this was the result of it, joyntly with the consent of interpreters doe force us to this expo­sition of that place. Again, it is impossible these words, speaking literally, & properly, should signifie an agreeing to go to seuerall Provinces, both because the phrase, [ they gave the right hands of communication] signifies an acce­pting & acknowledging Paul & Barnabas in something common to them & the rest, as was the doctrine of Christ's [...]aith, and could not relate to going to divers Provinces, which were pretended to be particular, as also because [...], is no where found to signifie in the Greek simply they agreed; and lastly, because an half point in the Greek copies at [...], communion or fellow­ship, disjoyns that precedent phrase from the following of going to such & such places. The words then, that we should go to the Heathen, they to the Circumcision, are a meer sequel, if we follow the rigour of the letter; & so the whole place signifies thus much, that whereas S. Paul was disturbed in his preaching, & was glad to clear his do­ctrine by coming to Hierusalem, they gave him the right hand of fellowship acknowledging him their fellow Apo­stle, & his doctrine entirely sincere; that so each might fall to their work again in the same places, & in the same manner as formerly.

Now Mr. H's Disarmer, proceeding upon the grounds of this plain explication, held there was no other, that is, no new & farther designation (as Mr. H. calls it ( Answ. p. 41) save onely this of Gods special cooperation with them in those several places, though he was far from de­nying that one Apostle went one way, others another to preach, (as the Dr. knows well enough) and that their determination was onely a prudential subscribing to what Gods particular Providence had hinted to them; and con­sequently no novelty at all of designation appears here in [Page 230] respect of S. Peter & S. Paul, which was our question; and yet Dr. H. (not vnderstanding that the subscribing to a former designation, or proceeding to act according to it, is in it self no new, or farther-designation as he calls it) nicknames this explication of mine one litle deceit of S. W. which the Catholike Gent. had not attaind to. And tru­ly tis so litle, that without the magnifying glasse of pas­sion & prejudice, which enhances nothing to great somthings, & makes vast beames of matters slenderer then moats, it cannot at all be discernible. It shall bee D. H's honour to be the Author of great deciets, & self-contradictions which neither unskilful S. W. nor the Ca­tholike Gent. dare aspire to.

Again, were it a deciet to say, that there were no other assignation there exprest, yet D. H. is the most unfit man in the world to undecieve others in that point, who in ano­ther place holds the same point himself, to wit, that the Apostles agreement and the precedent designation signi­fies the same thing. His words are these ( Repl. p. 55. l. 12.) The right hands of fellowsh [...]p, the agreement that was made betwixt them, &c. is sure the interpretation of the [...]; which if it be so, to wit, that their entrusting exprest antecedently have the same sence as their subsequent agreement, then I wonder what is become of his farther designation, since one is but the interpretation of the other, that is hath the same sence with the other.

Sect. 7▪
The Examination of five Testimonies brought in recruit for his exclusive Provinces; of which the first is expressely a­gainst himself; the next three, even in his own grounds, impertinent to our Question; and the first borrowed from the Arch heretick Pelagius, and falsify'd to boot.

AT present we have no more to do, but to Answer his lately gleand testimonies, huddled together con­fusedly [Page 231] in his Answ. p. 39. 40. And though, when rea­son is to manage the busines, we are to expect nothing but contradictions from this Dr. as himself has amply in­form'd us; yet, being now got into his own element of comon-place-book testimony-parcels, we must imagin his art is at it's vertical heighth.

The first is from S. Ambrose on Gal. 2. 8. which I shall transcribe as I finde it cited by him; Pétrum solum nomi­nat ac sibi comparat, quia Primatum ipse acceperat ad fun­dandam Ecclesiam, se quoque pari modo electum ut Prima­tum habeat in fundandis Gentium Ecclesiis. He names Pe­ter alone & compares him to himself, because he had received the Primacie to found the Church, and he likewise is chosen to have the Primacie of founding the Churches of the Gen­tiles: where, first, if Primatus signifies Primacy of Iuris­diction (and unles it signifies so 'tis nothing to our que­stion, which is about Iurisdiction onely) then it is not pos­sible to imagin a testimony more expresly for our tenet of S. Peter's universal Iurisdiction and greater then S. Paul's, than this which he alledges against it; saying that S. Peter had the Primacy to found the Church, without any limitation at all mentioned confining him to this or that Church; So that, if there be any exclusivenes or shadow of exclusivenes found in that place as I see none) then it ought in all reason be the exclusivenes of S. Paul from the Iews, since he is particulariz'd by it to the Gen­tiles; and not of S. Peter from any, who is not particu­lariz'd here at all to any part or portion of the Church, but extended to all, unles D. H. will say, that the word [ Ecclesia, Church] signifies a peece of the Church one­ly. This testimony therefore might serue to some purpo­se, were it brought to prove that S. Peter's Iurisdiction was Vniversal, & S. Paul's limited, but to prove S. Peter's limited from words that extend it to the Church, without any note of limitation at all found there, is still Dr. H's [Page 232] old & bold trick, of gulling the Reader to his face, with out either shame or conscience. Secondly, the compari­son between those two Apostles and the ( pari modo electus) if we will stand to the words in the testimony, make this sence as apply'd to particulars; that, as S. Paul was particularly chosen to found the Gentiles Church, so S. Peter was in like manner particularly chosen to found the whole Church, which signifies that S. Peter was uni­versal Pastor, and S. Paul vnder him: which is kind­ly done of Mr. H. and deserves great thanks from us. Though I wonder the sincere Reader can without just resentment suffer himself to be so tamely deluded, as D. H. endeavors here, by making him beleeve that testi­mony of S. Peter's Primacy to build the Church, signifies that he was onely over the Iews; and that not all these nei­ther, but onely over one portion of them in dispersion; nor yet that these were his exclusive or peculiar Province, unless S. Paul chanced to meet him in the same City. Thus per­fectly careless is he whether the place hee alledges be in­different, for him or against him (as hath been shown all over in Schism Disarm'd) so he can dazle a vulgar headed reader's eyes with the glorious pretence of a father's or councill's testimony and make way to introduce it by so­me voluntary and boldly-promising preamble of his own as he does at present; assuring us here ( Answ. p. 39. l. 35.) that these words of S. Ambrose are plain; but, whe­ther plain for him, or plainly against him it matters not with him; and that in them S. Ambr. asserts all that was either his purpose or interest to affirm: as if it were either Dr. H's intent or his advantage to conclude S. Peter over the Church without any limitation put down, that is, over the whole Church, and S. Paul over the Gentiles onely, and so vnder him.

The second testimony is from S. Chrysostom, saying that S. Paul demonstrates himself to be [...] equall to [Page 233] them [...]: and compares himself with Peter the chief of them. Thus hee. In Answer. First the word [...] coming from [...] which signifies any kind of ex­trinsecall honor, whether it springs from better parts, greater efficacy, more industry in preaching, or from what so ever cause and not onely from dignity of Iurisdi­ction, it follows likewise that the word [...] taken in it's self as indifferently appliable by circumstances to signify an equality in any of the former respects, as it is to signi­fy an equality in the latter of Iurisdiction; and the like may be said of the word [...], since of it self it onely signifies that S. Paul compared himself to S. Peter; but, in which of the former regards this comparison was made, the generall signification of the word leaves indifferent and to be deermined by circumstances. Secondly the best circumstance to judge what this word should signify in that place is the subjecta materia or place it self, of which this is the explication; which being Gal. 2 8. whe­re there is nothing at all relating to Iurisdiction but to effi­catiousness in preaching to Iews and Gentiles, of this the­refore the comparison between these two Apostles must be understood; in this respect onely must they necessa­rily be signified by these words to have been equally-digni­fied, and not in Iurisdiction or governing power which is not there spoken of. Thirdly, that this is the meaning of it is clearly shown by the following Testimony (which is his third) out of Theophylact, who for the most part transcribes out of and follows S. Chrysostom; 'Tis this, [...], he shows himself equall [...] Peter: which words D. H. cites, but leaves out the words imediately following, lest they should quite spoil his pre­tence of proving out equality of power from the other. The following words are these; [...]: So that the testimony taken entirely is this, he shows him­self [Page 234] equally honored with Peter, for he who had given to Pe­ter efficacy of preaching to the Iews gave mee [...] the same towards the Gentiles. Where nothing is or can be more evident then this, that the [...] there spoken of was the self same as was exprest by the ( [...]) the self-same efficacy of preaching, which nothing concerns equa­lity or superiority of power or command in order to Go­vernment, as plain sence tells every man, and Dr. H. himself grants Answ. p. 51. l. 26.

The fourth testimony or rather the second part of the first is still from S. Amb. which,) as the Caspian sea runnes under ground a long way and then rises up again in the Euxine) sculks under a parenthesis in which the two late Testimonies are found, and shows it's Head again at the end of it in this form. Ita tamen vt & Petrus praedi­caret Gentibus si causa fuisset & Paulus Iudaeis nam vterque invenitur vtrumque fecisse; sed tamen plena authoritas Petro in Iudaismi praedicatione data agnoscitur & Pauli perfecta authoritas in praedicatione gentium invenitur, yet so that Pe­ter might preach to the Gentiles also if there were cause, and Paul to the Iews; for both of them is found to have done both: but yet the full Authority is acknowledged given to Peter in the preaching to the Iews and Paul's perfect Authority is found in preaching to the Gentiles. Where, the first part of the testimony is expressely contrary to Dr. H. this gran­ting that each might preach to either, he denying they had right to doe so, Repl. p. 56. and that S. Peter had no Iu­risdiction save over one portion onely of the dispersed Iews (of Schism p. 71.) The second part of it which concerns plena authoritas, full Authority or power, is onely meant of greater powerfulness and authoritative efficacity in preaching, not of fuller power of Iurisdiction. No [...] can it be otherwise, either proceeding upon grounds common to us both, these words being the explication or com­ment upon the greater efficacity of preaching spoken of [Page 235] in the 8. v. and so are to be understood to mean that said efficacy, which none imagins to signify Iurisdiction; and particularly upon Dr. H's grounds which makes no de­signation of Provinces till the agreement exprest as he will needs have it in the 9. v. by their giving the right hands of fellowship; to which this speciall efficacity of prea­ching, mention'd in the, 8. v. and it's exposition are an­tecedent. Again suppose it signified full power of Iurisdi­ction yet there wants ( when they met in the same City one­ly) to make it expresse for Mr. H's tenet; So that nei­ther can it concern our question of Iurisdiction; nor, did it, could it reach home to Dr. H's purpose. Lastly, to render this place impossible to serve Dr. H's turn, let us look Answ. p. 51. l. 26. and we shall find him expressely contend that preaching or converting is nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction and therefore not argumentatiue for us to in­fer S. Peter's larger Iurisdiction from his preaching to more: Now then, since the Authority here spoken of is onely in praedicatione, in preaching (as the testimony it self inform us) consequently it can neither concern our question which is about Iurisdiction, nor make for his purpose, and all this follows out of his own words and his own grounds.

The fifth Testimony is from S. Hierom (as hee tells us) that the Churches of the Iews seorsim habebantur nec his quae erant ex gentibus miscebantur, were held a part nor mingled with these of the Gentiles, and that the agreement was made that S. Paul should preach to the Gentiles, Peter Iames and Iohn to the Iews. The latter part of this testi­mony is already answered and shown that this was a pru­dent consent to act in such sort as God's speciall concur­rence had manifested to be best in those circumstances. To act, I say, not to make a formall and perpetuall pact the one Province should be (as Dr. H. expresses it ( Repl. p. 56. l. 2. 5.) so one Apostles that he hath no right to [Page 236] another part but is excluded from any farther right; which includes two things besides some to go one way and some another; to wit perpetu [...]ty of such a right, and exclusive­nes; neither of which are any where exprest in this testi­mony.

As for the first part of this place concerning the seve­ring of the Iewish and Gentile Churches. First I Answer, that I doubt not but the Apostles did prudently let them vse their devotions a part as long as the Iewish customes were in fresh observation, and therefore the conjuction of them in common Acts of devotion would have been subject to breed offence and scandalls; but, I deny ab­solutely that which can serve Dr. H's turn, to wit, that they [...]sed their endeavours to keep them still a part for the future, which they had done had they constituted distinct Bishops over them to govern them as contradi­stinct Provinces; for, this would have made the breach which was onely occasionall at first and so easily by de­grees alterable, passe into ecclesiasticall Constitution, not easily violable, by this means keeping on foot the divi­sion: and also this carriage of the Apostles would have countenanced the breach and the groundless scandall which occasion'd the breach.

All therefore the Apostles did was no more then as if Magistrates who govern in common a City, if the Citi­zens chance to fall at variance, some prudently comply with one side, others with the other to reduce both to unity ad amity which is far from making two litle com­mōwealths of them or assigning them distinct Magistrates to govern them: which had they done who sees not but by taking a way the Vnity of Government they had esta­blisht the division. Such was evidently the Apostles de­meanour here, such their intentions; to wit, as much as they could without scandalizing either party, to bring them to Vnity and Vniformity into one Church and to [Page 237] Vnite them in him whom they taught to be the head cor­ner-stone, Christ Iesus, in whom was no distinction of Iew and Gentile: And surely had the distraction in the Primi­tive Church been thus cōtinued by Apostolicall agreemēt to sever them as distinct Provinces and constitute over them opposite-litled Bishops we should both have heard news of [...]ome of those Bishops exprest by some testimo­ny from antiquity to have been over Iews onely or Gen­tiles onely; and also have heard of their reuniting after wards under one common Bishop, and how the former Bishops, either one or both, were dispossest or lost their place. Yet not a syllable could Dr. Hammond find to ex­presse the former save his own, Id est, nor to countenan­ce the latter but his own new invented Scholion, or (as he calls it of Schism p 79. his clew,) to extricate the Reader out of the mazes into which antient writers may lead him; as hath been shown particularly in Schism Disarm'd. Part. 1. Sect. 10. 11. 12.

Secondly, to return to our Testimony Dr. H. prettily ioyns these two places together thus, S. Hierom having affirmed on Gal. 1. 22. that the Iewish and Gentile Churches were severd, addes (saith hee) on this verse of c. 2. that they agreed that S. Paul should preach to the Gentiles, &c. and thence having found the word severing in the first place, he infers a severing of Provinces, and introduces it with a sure. What means ( having affirmed in his comment on the first Ch. he addes in his comment on the second,) as if the second place following soe far of and spoken in a nother occasion had been an addition to the first; all his follo­wing book is added to any line of it if this be adding. But this is another Gentile gullery of the Reader to his face to make him conceit by ( having affirmed he addes) that the severing of Churches exprest in the first place relates to their agreement found in the latter, which would have made some shew of a proof. But, alas, how far are these [Page 238] two from being added together or conjoyned? This pre­tended agreement among the Apostles to which the second part of the Testimony relates, hapning fourteen yeares after what was recounted in the first Chapter v. 22 on which the first part of the testimony comments, as is clearly seen in the first verse of the 2. Chapter. After four­teen years, &c. Soe that the meaning of Dr. H's ( having affirmed he addes) comes to this, that, having affirmed one thing in one place he addes another thing in another, which happend fourteen years after, and indeed much longer the scandall between the Iews and the Gentiles ha­ving been much ancienter, and ever since the beginning of the preaching of the saith to both. Thus Dr. H. civily abuses his Reader; and, as long as he does it civily, S. W. must not be angry with him or if he does he must not hope to goe to heaven as Dr. H. hath told him from Scri­pture, p. 3.

What is said hitherto is pretty but yet Dr. H. vses to be kinder when he alledges testimonies and either brings such as are expressely against him, as he did lately from S. Ambrose, and in many other places; or else contradicts himself; let us examin this a while and we shall see, hee continues his former favours to us. I slall suppose with Dr. H. that he produced the former testimony of seve­ring the said Churches to prove those severall Provinces both because I find the word ( sever) which he vses in his inference no where but in that place onely; as also, be­cause if it were not produced for that end, I know not what it serves for at all. Again, I shall suppose with him that these imagin'd lesser Provinces of Iews and Gentiles were assign'd by Apostolicall agreement, not by Christ; as he amply declares himself of Schism p. 70. And that this agreement was that which is exprest Gal. 2. v. 8. 9. &c. as he expresses himself in many other places of the two Provinces of Iews and Gentiles. Now then this place of [Page 239] S. Hierom's being (as he sayes) upon Gal. 1. 22. which concerns matters done fourteen years before this agree­ment, (as the beginning of the second Chap. manifests) the result is that these severall lesser Provinces, as dedu­cible from this testimony, were fourteen years before they were. But this is a contemptible contradiction in Mr. H. who aimes at higher matters. So much for the upshot of Dr. H. ( having affirmed, he addes) which signifies thus much that S. Hierom. having affirmed one thing in one place, and on an occasion happening at such a season, he addes a quite disparate thing in another place a mile of, and an occasion relating to another time fourteen years after, which Dr. H. preposterously adds or ioyns toge­ther, and then layes the blame on S. Hierom.

Thus much to shew how impertinent this testimony had been, in case it were S. Hierom's; but now, if it be none of that fathers but another author's, and he two an heretick, nay in all probability the Arch heretick Pela­g [...]us, and this confest by all sides both Catholicks and Protestants, and moreover most unlikely to be unknown to Dr. H. what characters shall wee think such a writer deserves who characters himself so earnestly to desire to speak the full truth of God (Answ. p. 18.) and yet quotes the most pestilent hereticks for the most Orthodox fathers, and would have his Readers rely for their salvation upon their rotten Authority; which is in a manner to stand to the devill's courtesy whether he will have their Souls or no.

It is an ordinary thing to print in the volumes of the fathers all Treatises which have hapt to be entitled theirs, let them be genuine or spurious. To discern them or take cognizance which are sophisticated, which not, belongs particularly to learned men who read the fathers for their own or others profit, lest they rely on themselves or vent to others the poison of heresy and error-tainted opi­nions [Page 240] in stead of Orthodox faith; nay indeed this, for the reason given, ought to be their first task; but most neces­sarily and specially theirs who undertake to write and print controversies of religion; the main universall im­portance of the employmēt engaging them to look with the perfectest care how they play their game when Souls ly at stake. If the thing then be obvious, the diligence of such an author is hugely concerned to look upon what grounds he proceeds; but, if he bee also much read in books of this nature, his candor and conscience are bound by the highest engagements God himself could impose to acknowledge either absolutely or at least dubiously that such a book is a known hereticks not a Catholicks▪ That Dr. H. had so litle insight into fathers as not to know this, I cannot in his behalf suspect; I doubt not bu [...] he is industrious and laborious enough, and takes as much pains in reading to as litle purpose as most men living; and I wish his indirect dealings in other places would let my charity consist with truth to think him innocent of the latter and greater fault. However, I will not judge him my self, but I suppose his friends, who have a great opi­nion of his generall reading, will think it not candidly do­ne after they consider this which follows.

Two commentaries on the Galatians are intitled S. Hierom's the one larger and acknowledged by both sides, the other briefer and acknowledged by neither; nor is it possible that any man, who had run over the titles of the Treatises which goe under S. Hierom's name, should be ignorant that two such commentaries there were; and so, had he meant honestly in citing a place out of one of them, he would have told us in which it was found, whe­ther in the larger or in the briefer. To put down then a Testimony and cite onely Hier. in Gal. 1. 21. without tel­ling us in which commentaries on the Gal. it was found (when as Dr. H's much reading will not permit us to think [Page 241] he was ignorant there was two) joind with this observa­tion that the testimony was not found in the larger one, but in the lesser; not in the genuine, but in those which are acknowledg'ly spurious, consequently this sleight half citing it savours very strong of a wilfully-affected in­sincerity.

Now the exceptions of our Dr. against these briefer com­mentaries as also all those shorter ones upon S. Paul's Epistles, are these, that it is manifestly shown from S Au­gustin that they were writ by the Arch heretick Pela­gius. For that father in his third book de peccatorum me­ritis & remissione c. 1. sayes that he had read the short commentaries of Pelagius upon all the Epistles of Paul; and in the same book c. 12. he cites some things out of the 7. c. of the. 1. Cor. which are found in them. Our Doctors also gather manifestly Pelagian opinions and po­sitions out of the same commentaries upon Rom. c. 5. 6. 7. 8. and. 11. Vpon. 1. Cor. 4. Phil. 1. and 3. Vpon Tim. c. 6.

Nor have the Protestants a better opinion of them their own much approved Rivetus in his book Criti [...]i sacri printed at Geneva p. 374. affirms that both the dif­ference of the stile and the opinions of them shew them to be none of S. Hierom. that Ambrosius Catharinus thinks that Pe [...]agius writ them, because upon the sixth and ninth ad Rom. he teaches that eternall predestination is from the merits of the elect foreseen by the divine foreknow­ledge; that Senensis doubts not but the author of them was sick of the Pelagian pestilence because upon the 7. c. ad Rom. he calls it a madnesse to think that originall sinne was derived from Adam. After this he quotes Victorius and Bellarmine, and sayes that the latter of them proves them out of S. Augustin to be writ by the Arch-here­tick Pelagius, Thus far their own Rivetus.

And now, I beseech thee Protestant Reader, be true to thy self, and thine own Soul, and see what sincere Drs [Page 242] thou reliest on, who though when they speak freely and are not put to it in dispute they grant that these commen­taries are an Arch-hereticks; yet, when they are put to it to maintain their paradoxicall faith, make S. Hierom an Arch-heretick, or else the Arch-heretik Pelagius his doctrine S. Hierom and Orthodox, by making those books his, so they can but glean any sorry scrap of a te­stimony thence to lend a dim colour to their cause, and to countenance it by a sophisticate and counterfeit Au­thority; nay, onely half-cite the place, to cloak the in­sincerity of which their own hearts are conscious; and la­stly, which is most worth noting this very testimony so miserably authorised is soe mainely rely'd on, that he can never make the ends of his discourse meet without the help of this, every foot, nor even pretend to show one word in any testimony for his tenet but by making this one of the three testimonies which must peece up that one word, as shall be seen hereafter.

Thus much to shew how weak this Testimony is in it self had it been true, and how the Dr. falsifies it's Autho­rity to gain it an undue credit; but this is not all, the fal­sifying the Authority of this Testimony could not serve his turn, but he must falsify the words two, pretending that S. Hierom added upon, Gal. c. 2. v 8. that the agree­ment was made that S. Paul should preach to the Gentiles and Peter Iames and Iohn to the Iews whereas there is noe newes of any agreement exprest in that place; for upon the words [ dextras dederunt, they gave us their right hands] in which phrase Dr. H. places the agreement there is noe comment at all found save onely this, ita nos docere debe­re, that Paul and Barnabas should teach thus and thus; and upon the following words, relating to Paul and Bar­nabas nothing but onely this, ambo enim missi erant simul vt gentibus praedicarent for they were both sent together that they might preach to the Gentiles. But whether this sending sprung [Page 243] from an agreement among the Apostles or from the sole designation of God Almighty, exprest both by his speciall cooperation with them, as also by those words, separate for me Paul and Barnabas, &c. the testimony alledged sayes nothing. Now Dr. H. building mainly upon this agreement and expresly citing this place for it where noe agreement at all is found, 'tis most manifest that he hath falsified the words of the testimony aswell as it's Au­thority.

Sect. 8.
Two other Testimonies for the same point scan'd: the first abus'd, and yet still impertinent to his purpose; the se­cond, a most egregious and notorious falsification. S▪ Hierom's mind in this point of Exclusive Provinces.

THe sixth Testimony is from Theophylact on Gal. 1. 22. recited by Dr H. thus [...], &c. Being come to Iudea he departed thence, both because he was sent a preacher to the Gentiles, and because he would not build on another's foundation. In Answer: does hee say, hee could not build on another's foundation, or, as Dr. H. expresses it Reply p. 56. had not right to doe it? if not, what are these words to us, who do not desire that S. Paul should do imprudently, as it had been if leaving the Gentiles, where himself had begun to preach with expe­rience of so much fruit, he should apply himself to preach in Iudea, where S. Peter had experienc't the like fruit; which was, in other language, to leave a place where his preaching was most needfull and most particularly fruit full, and stay in another where his preaching was needles and not so particularly fruitfull. Is this any thing at all to our question of limited or unlimited Iurisdiction. Second­ly, the words, because he was sent a preacher to the Genti­les, are meant of Christ's Mission (as shall presently be [Page 244] demonstrated) acknowledged by Dr. H. ( of Schism, p. 70.) to have been unlimitedly and indefinitely given to all the Apostles not restrained by Christ's words to any particu­lar Province, and in particular speaking of S. Paul's Pro­vince, Repl. p. 55. l. 31. Soe that the bringing this proof for lesser Provinces, is perfectly frivolous and self-con­tradictory. Thirdly, this testimony is upon, Gal. 1. 21. and speakes of his coming to Judea to see Peter, which was more then fourteen years before his next coming thither, Gal. 2. when this distribution of those lesser Pro­vinces by agreement are pretended to bee made. This is seen most evidently from the direct tenour of those places counting exactly the years; I went to Hierusalem to see Pe­ter, Gal. 1. 18. After, I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Gal. 1. 21. After which imediately follows, Then after fourteen years I went up again to Hierusalem with Barnabas, &c. at which time the pretended agreement was made and the right hands of fellowship given, (as is to be seene in the following verses) upon which he builds the assignation of those fancied Provinces, ( of Schism, p. 73. Answ p. 41. l. 5. Repl. p. 56. l 14. and p. 57. l. 4. &c. and in many other places soe that we see this second going up to Hierusalem, when the Provinces are imagin'd to be given, was fourteen years after his being in Iudea mention'd in the Testimony, besides the time S. Paul was in Syria and Cilicia. This distance of time is unquestion­nably the outward show of the letter; but, howsoever it may be interpreted, this is most certain and without all controversy that it was afterwards. These things being so, what a shame then is it to bring a testimony, relating to things done long before, to prove his conceit of lesser Provinces held by himself to have been assigned long af­ter. But is this all the shame? let us see. The testimony is put down by him in indifferent termes, being come to Iu­dea he departed thence, &c. without any distinction when [Page 245] this coming was whether before, at, or after the preten­ded agreement; whereas had it been known that it was at his coming onely to see Peter, which hapened before that agreement, whence he deduces these lesser Provinces of S. Peter and S. Paul, it had been manifestly discouer'd to be perfectly useles to prove that there were such lesser Provinces at all. These words therefore hewarily leaves out least they should quite disgrace the rest. The testimony entirely recited is this, [...], &c. coming to Iudea onely to see Peter; which for­mer words being so few, so link't in context with the other words, and soe totally disadvantaging his pretence of les­ser Provinces deducible hence (they being future, even in his own grounds, in respect of this time he came to see Peter) I shall take leave to think there was design and Artifice in omitting them and producing the testimonie soe advantageously imperfect, though I hazard another excommunication in Greek from the crafty alledger and abuser of it.

From his Answer let us go to his Reply, p. 55. where we shall find him from falsifying in iest, fall to do it in earnest; and that, soe openly and manifestly as is impossible either to be cloak't, with evading glosses or excused by igno­rance or mistake. I commend therefore the examination of it to Dr. H's friends more particularly; even submit­ting my self to their censure if he be found excusable. To put all clearer I will fully transcribe from the place al­ledged.

His seventh testimony; where after he had told us that Paul and Barnabas had a Province entrusted to them by gi­ving the right hands of fellowship which he calls their agreement to do so, he undertakes to prove it beginning his fourth parag. thus. And this is the speciall importance, (saith S. Chrysostome) of the [ [...] but contrariwise] the beginning of v. 7. as that is apposed to [...] their [Page 246] adding to him, v. the 6. Iames saith he, and Peter and Iohn were so far from opposing any thing that he had done, from advising any thing more, from telling him any circumstance more then before he knew, that they not onely approved but commended what he had done, and, to set things the more unquestionably for the future, made this agreement with him and Barnabas that whensover they should come to the same City mixt of Iews and Gentiles Peter and Iohn should beta­ke themselves to the Iewish, and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile part of it. And here I find the first full stop, all the rest being commas, which followd the, [ saith hee] to wit, S. Chrysostom's by which '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 hee] went upon S. Chrysostom's account, and were alledged as his. This once premised, we will set down S. Chrysostom's testimony in his own words; and that eve­ry reader may understand it, introduce it with a short glance at the occasion of them out of Scripture.

S. Paul, compelled by some calumnies against his do­ctrine, went up to Hierusalem to communicate the go­spell he preached to them who were of reputation, Peter, Iames, and Iohn, who as hee affirmed [...], in conference added nothing to him, [...] but contra­riwise, finding his doctrine entire and perfect, and mo­ved by seeing the grace that was given him, gave to him the right hands of fellowship; acknowledging, by this acceptation of him for their fellow Apostle, that his do­ctrine was sound Now S. Chrysostom's comment upon that place which is the testimony related to by Dr. H. is this. [...]: what means, [but contrariwise] some affirm S. Paul [Page 247] sayes that they not onely not taught him, but were taughtly him; but I should not say so, save onely that they blamed him not, but were so far from blaming him, that they also prai­sed him; for praising is contrary to blaming; and so proceeds in expressing their commendation and approbation of his doctrine throughout this whole place alledged. Here, reader, thou seest what S. Chrysostom makes the spec all importance of the [ [...] but contrariwise] to bee; to wit that they praised him, praising being contrary to bla­ming.

Hence appears the first wilfull falsification of Dr. H. who having spoken of S, Paul's having a Province entru­sted to him by Apostolicall agreement, imediately sub­joyns. And this is the speciall importance, saith S. Chrysostom. [ [...], but contrariwise] as if the commending S. Paul's doctrine, in which onely S. Chrysostome puts the antithesis and opposition to the blaming it, did not onely import but specially, import the intrusting him with a lesser Province whereas all the speciall importance of it is onely this that Dr. H. hath a speciall faculty of his own in falsi­fiing, and making speciall fools his credulous Readers to think all his forgeries gospell because he gives them spe­ciall fine words, and assures them he hath a speciall desi­re to speake the full truth of God.

Yet a simple falsification is too weak to defend Dr. H's cause wherefore, to make sure work, he twists them into a compound forgery. In his book of Schism he endea­vor's to prove that these Apostles had severall Provinces at Rome and Antioch; his Disarmer show'd to the eye of the Reader that he had not one word expressing that position in any testimony alledged but what he added with an, Id est, of his own head: It is expected therefore that he should at least produce new ones which were ex­presse in his Reply and Answ. and, that we may see how strongly warranted his Tenet is, he brings here one so [Page 248] home and expresse that I confesse some difficulty to Ans­wer it; I mean the latter part of the long testimony lately recited as from S. Chrysostome; and to set the things the more unquestionably for the future, they made this agree­m [...]nt with Paul and Barnabas, that, when soever they should come to the same City mixt of Iews and Gentiles, Peter and Iohn should betake them selfs to the Iewish and Paul and Bar­nabas to the Gentile part of it. This is expressely now and full for Dr. H's tenet, not a testimony-bolt shot at rovers, or onely touching the question obscurely, as was his cu­stome in other places. But, alas, how is the good testi­mony spoile'd and the alledger of it exposed to shame; not a word of all this long rabble soe neerly importing the Question is found in the Author, but onely voluntarily added by the good Dr. and fatherd upon S. Chrysostom. no news, God knows, is there in the place it self either of setting things unquestionably for the future, nor of making an agreement, nor of, meeting in the same City, nor of Iews and Gentiles mixt, nor of betaking themselves to the Iewish or Gentile part of it, nor of any thing to that pur­pose; but onely of the sufficiency of S. Paul's doctrine, their approving it, praising it, and the like. So that Dr. H. for want of a better Author quotes himself for his own tenet, coins a pregnant and convincing testimony out of the mint of his own brain; and then, to make it currant, stamps upon it the Image and superscription of S. Chrysostom. And all this out of his entire desire to speak the full truth of God.

This falsification being so notorious, it were not amisse to make some brief animadversions upon it, that Dr. H's art in this and many other places may be better discoverd, and the reader more perfectly undeceiu'd in the opinion of his sincerity.

Note first then, ere he introduces the testimony he speaks of the direct point in controversie to wit, of en­trusting [Page 249] of Provinces by Apostolicall agreement.

Note secondly, that, this done, he brings in a quite disparate thing; to wit, the approving and commending S. Paul's doctrine.

Note thirdly, the fine words with which he introduces it, [ and this is the speciall importance, saith S Chrysostome, of the [...]] which, though absolutely false as hath been shown, yet, those pretty confident words of speciall importance, and the fathering it upon S. Chryso­stome make it seem authentickly true and passe down gli­bly with a cursory Reader.

Note fourthly, how he layes out at large in the for­mer half of the long testimony S. Chrysostom's words con­cerning the sufficiency and laudablenesse of S. Paul's do­ctrine, as if it were importantly concerning the having a Province entrusted him, whereas it is quite concerning another matter; which is his old trick of a busing the rea­der to his face, so often discover'd.

Note fifthly, how having alledged a testimony about S. Paul's praise-worthines, which nothing at all concerns our question, and by this means got a cloak for any thing he should think good to add of his own head he proceeds with a career in S. Chrysostom's name to their agreement of distinct Provinces when they met at the same City; to countenance which not a syllable is there found: yet he goes smothly from one matter to the other without the least rub so much as of an hypocolon to stop him; by this means comprising all under the common head of ( saith hee.)

Note sixthly, that, as he usher'd in his former falsi­fication with the confident phrase of speciall importance, so here, that the Reader may not distrust nor doubt but that all is reall, he ushers in his latter with un questionably; to set all (saith hee) unquestionably for the future. What Reader now could be soe discourteous as to suspect Dr. H's [Page 250] integrity where as he assures him with such doubt-setling expressions as these are, and makes his bold-fac'd testi­monies wear nothing but speciall and unquestionable in their serious countenances?

Lastly it is to be noted that in his book of Schism, he used to add these self-invented testimony-parcells with an, Id est; but since, Id est, which stickled soe much before, was shamed out of countenance by Schism Disarm'd, now he adds what words he pleases in a smooth even tenour with the true part of the testimony, without any, Id est at all; both because the words of the father and the addi­tion of the Dr. were soe disparate that noe, Id est, would possibly conioyn their sense, as also, because such distin­ctive notes are discernible, and so might prove tell-tales and discover his craft, which he hoped by running from the father's words to his own with a sly smothnes might remain lesse discoverable.

And soe much for these seven testimonies, the flower of Mr. H's second thoughts in his Reply and Answer, to support his tenet of exclusive Provinces which Schism Disarm'd had ruin'd. All which have been shown so im­pertinent to the point they are brought to prove that he might with better reason have alledged the first verse of Genesis, [In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth] as a testimony for his exclusive Provinces; for, though that place were impertinent to his purpose, yet it is not opposite nor contradictory to it; whereas these said testimonies produced by him are at best impertinent to what they are intended for, and most of them directly contrary to his on-all-sides-destitute tenet.

I had forgot one small testimony of Dr. H's for these exclusive Provinces, which hides it self soe nicely in a Pa­renthesis that it scap't my observation. But having found it we shall not neglect to pull it out of it's hole, because it will give us some further instructions what a Master of his [Page 251] [...] 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 preacht in diverse nations [...] to the Iews that were of the dispersion) the meaning is evident, &c. Thus hee, whereas first there is not a word to that purpose found in the place alledged. Secondly, how can onely his preaching to the Iews of the disper­sion countenance that they were his Province, since 'tis known and granted that he preached also to the Iews in Iudea; so that if from such a manner of expression it may be infer'd that the one is his Province, by the same rea­son it may conclude for the other also. Thirdly, observe how neatly he brings Eusebius to speak on his side, I say Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision exclusively to the uncircumcision, as Eusebius sayes he preached to the Iews of the dispersion: which signifies thus much; Iust as I say S. Peter was Apostle of the Iews of the dispersion exclusively (in which word lies the whole question) soe Eusebius sayes that he preacht to them not naming any exclusion at all, and by consequence not saying a word to our purpose or the question in hand, it being granted that each Apostle preached to any Sect or nation as their occasions invited them. Is not this a worthy similitude? yet this, exprest drily as is Dr. H's wily way, and the testimony touched at sleightly gulls an ordinary Reader to his face and per­swades him that Eusebius does perfectly second Dr. H's tenet of exclusive Provinces.

It was ob [...]ected to Mr. H. by the Cath. Gent. that S. Peter preached to Cornelius a Gentile and therefore that he was not over the Iews onely or exclusively: he Answers that this preaching to Cornelius was before the designation of Provinces, Repl. p. 57. and therefore the argument is of no force. I reply, 'tis S. Hierom's argument upon, Gal. [Page 252] c. 2. v. 7. where he moves the present question in these words. Occulta hic oritur quaestio, Quid igitur? Petrus si invenisset ex Gentibus non eos adducebat ad fidem, &c. here ariseth (saith hee) an obscure question; what if Peter found any Gentiles, did not he bring them to Christ's faith; or, if Paul found any Iews, did not he move them to the baptis. of Christ, Then he proceeds to solve it, by saying, that one had principale mandatum, a principall charge over Iews and the other over Gentiles, that either side, haberent quem sequerentur, might have one whom they might follow. All which the prudence of Magistrates requires to be pra­ctised without limiting Authority as hath been shown. This done he signifies their promiscuous intention to preach to both and consequently their Iurisdiction (for certainly they did not intend to doe what they had noe right to doe) in these words, In commune verò hoc eos ha­buisse propositi, vt Christo ex cunctis gentibus Ecclesiam con­gregarent; legimus enim & à S. Petro Gentibus baptizatum fuisse Cornelium & à Paulo in Synagogâ Iudaeorum Chri­stum saepissimè praedicatum. But in common this was both their intentions to gather a Church to Christ out of all nations; for we read that both Cornelius, a Gentile, was baptized by Peter, and also that Christ was very often preached by Paul in the Synagogue of the Iews. Where,

Observe first, that the very question between Dr. H. and mee is here moved by S. Hierom, to wit, concer­ning the exclusivenes or not exclusivenes of these Apost­les Iurisdictions; or, at least (for I imagin it impossible S. Hierom should even dream of such an absurd posi­tion) of their acting exclusively.

Observe secondly that since their exclusivenes consi­sted onely in their meeting in the same place, as Dr. H. holds, There and there onely it is (saith hee, Rep. p. 59. l. 10.) had S. Hierom been acquainted with any such matter, it had been impossible not to expresse it here; [Page 253] since the discourse it self necessarily directed him to it. For how could he Answer a question about their exclu­sivenes, without saying they had such an exclusivenes when they met, if it were true that they had none at all but onely in the occasion. But, alas S. Hierom and all antiquity were ignorant that there would arise in future ages such a quicksighted wit as Dr. H. who could see things better a mile of then they could doe at a yard distance.

Oserve thirdly, that it was strange he should not Ans­wer that this particular addiction of theirs was by Apo­stolical agreement or Dr. H's farther designation, but to put it originized from another occasion.

Observe fourthly, that his Answer insists onely upon the principale mandatum, the principall charge to apply themselves thus severally, and expresses it not as an act of distinct Iurisdiction but of a prudent aeconomy, that either side haberent quem sequerentur, might have whom to follow; to wit, in their neglecting or retaining the Mo­saicall institutions, as is shown there; since, in all likely hood, one side or other would totally have declined from Christ's faith had not this prudent distribution of them selves interven'd

Observe fifthly, that this principale mandatum in which S. Hierom places this particular application of themsel­ves was from God; both, because none on earth had po­wer to lay commands upon those tow Apostles; as also, because it is sufficiently intimated in the foregoing words; me Paulum misit ad Gentes, illum posuit in Iudaea he (to wit God) sent me to the Gentiles, and placed him in Iu­daea; which being so, it is expresse against Dr. H. who holds that the Commission of Authority as given by God to each Apostle is unlimited, of Schism. p. 70.

Observe sixthly, that this speciale mandatum prejudiced nor hindred not their intentions to preach to all Nations [Page 254] exprest by in commune verò, &c. and the following, legi­mus enim, &c.

Observe seaventhly th [...] S. Hierom does the same as the Cath. Gent. to wit, makes account that S Peter's preaching to Cornelius a Gentile, prejudices their exclu­sivenes soe that if Dr. H. have any thing to say against the Cath. Gent. in this point, let him go and wrangle first with S. Hierom.

Oserve lastly, that S. Hierom bringing this passage granted by Dr. H. to have happend before his imagind agreement, as an instance against their exclusivenes, and that upon the 2. to the Gal. the agreement is supposed to be made, shows plainly that S. Hierom made account that there was noe agreement at all made in this point; or that, if there were, things stood in the same manner af­ter the fancied agreement as before it; otherwise this in­stance of his had been to noe purpose; being of a passage happening long before it.

This Testimony of S. Hierom I at first intended one­ly to let Mr. H. see that this learned father made the sa­me argument as the Cath. Gent. did; but, finding it the most expresse for our controversy that Antiquity affords, (as far as I have read) since it proposes and solves the very question between us I thought good to let the rea­der see how far Antiquity was from Dr. H's chimericall tenet of exclusive Provinces, and how perfectly for ours of the Apostles still-Vniversall Iurisdictions; each expres­sion here found being either emphaticall for us, or else sounding clearly to our manifest advantage by seconding ad confirming our explication of this place and passage.

Sect. 9.
Dr. H's manner of arguing to prove that S. Peter had no singular supremacy (as hee styles it) at Hierusalem.

NOthing is so weak but falshood, which is weaknes it self, can think it worth producing to strengthen it self by; and, as this breeds acceptance, so passion and desperation forces the unfortunate Patrons of a self-rui­nous cause cling to the feeblest shadows as to most sub­stantiall proofs to underprop their weak Ivy. This is seen by pitifull experience in Dr. H. who is enamored on eve­ry toy, though the passage or expression be perfectly in­different, absolutely disparate, nay some times quite op­posit to him, so his strong antipathy against the Pope, join'd with his smooth-sly art can make a quodlibeticall dish of it to please the palates of his partiall friends or un­attentive Readers. Each leaf of his hitherto hath given us severall instances of this true charge yet none more evidently then this present passage now to be replied upon.

He told us confidently of Schism p. 73. that he quite took of all pretensions of S. Peter to the singular supremacy there, that is, at Hierusalem, where S. Iames was Bishop: his Disarmer askt him and now asks him again what he meās by singular supremacy there? was ever the Pope's Au­thority drest up in such an expression as this of singular supremacy: would not supremacy have served the turn, if he had a mind to be rightly understood, without such an odd Epithet? or, if he would needs give it an Epithet why should it not rather universall, then singular. Again, what means his adding the words [ there.] The supremacy in debate betwixt us is neither subject to Heres nor The­res, but universall and spreading it self to all places in the whole Christian world. All the singularity and particularity [Page 256] shown there at Hierusalem was of S. Iames being particu­lar Bishop of that place; and then indeed by proving S. Iames such; he quite takes of S. Peter's pretension to such a singular supremacy; but what is this to his being chief of the Apostles? cannot one be so without being particular Bishop of each see in the world? I excepted therefore against that illphrad title of honor, [ singular supremacy] as an ambiguous word, and apt to make the vulgar Reader imagin that S. Peter's universal authority is lost if any one be found singularly supreme in his own see; and I had good reason to be iealous of it, knowing it to be one of Dr H's best arts to couch himself in odd in­different expressions which help't by some circumstances (litle more then indifferent also) may make the Reader apt to take them in a sinister sence, and yet leave an eva­ding hole for the Dr. to say afterwards when his Adver­sary should challenge him, that he meant otherwise

Thus much for his uncouth expression of [ singular su­premacy] as it was found alone in his book of Schism without a Comment; here in his Answ. p. 42. he explica­tes himself to mean, such a supremacy as was not common to the other tow eminent Apostles; which is as wise as the text it self, and intimates thus much, that they had each supremacy there, but that S Peter's supremacy was not singular or above theirs; which would ground this pret­ty contradiction to the former that none at all were su­preme but all equall Or if he meant not that each was su­preme there in respect of the other, then what needed he add singular at all? let him but grant us onely a supremacy in S. Peter in respect of the other Apostles, and we shall not desire him to add the frivolous word ( singular) nor needed he impugn soe powerfully that expression which we never challenged nor stood upon, nay not soe much as heard of till he coin'd it.

But I accept of his comment; let it mean such a supre­macy [Page 257] (Authority, he would have said) as was not com­mon to the two other eminent Apostles, who does he impugn it, or, as he pretends, quite take of S. Peter's pre­tensions to it. Because (saith hee of Schism p. 73.) S. Iames his Iurisdiction was not by Peter alone entrusted unto him, but by Iames and Iohn together with Peter: so that the ar­gument stands thus; S. Peter cannot be higher in Autho­rity, unles he does all things alone by himself. Is not this excellent? But, what follows is superexcellent and trans­cendently rationall; his Disarmer shew'd his consequence naught, because an Arch-bishop going to consecrate a Bishop uses to take two other Bishops with him, which yet argues not that the Arch-bishop hath any greater Au­thority than a Bishop: soe that as it is inconsequent to say, an Arch bishop does not alone entrust a Bishop with a Bishoprick, but takes two Bishops a long with him to do it, therefore he hath noe higher Authority then the Bishops he takes with him; so, it is equally in­consequent to say, S. Peter did not alone entrust Iames with the Bishoprick of Hierusalem but took Peter and Iohn with him, therefore he had no higher Authority then Peter and Iohn. This consequence absolutely denied by me and an instance given to shew by parity the weak­nes of it, it was his task to strengthen it here; yet he hath the confidence to repeat it, and, in stead of sodering the incoherence of it, catches at my instance and tells me it neither does nor ever will be made appear by S. W. that S. Peter was an Arch bishop in respect of those two other suf­fragan Bishops Iames and Iohn. Did I say S. Peter was an Arch-bishop and the other two his suffragans? what means then this laying out my words in such a forme? that he had higher Authority was mine and the Catholike Tenet which higher Authority I showd not invalidated by his taking other two with him by the parity of an Arch-bis­hops carriage in the like case, and hence denied the con­sequence: [Page 258] yet in despight of Logick and the commonest rules of disputing he is resolved his consequence shall hold till I who am the defendent and am answering his argumēt prove mine own tenet and turn to be Opponent, making it appear (as he candidly expresses it) that S. Peter was an Arch-bishop, and the other two his suffragans. The summe then is this Dr. H. argues thus S. Peter took other two with him to consecrate Iames, therefore he hath noe higher Authority then those he took with him; I Answer denying the consequence, and affirming that he might be higher in Authority notwithstanding; showing it by a parity; what does our disputant? in stead of strengt­hening his weak consequence he onely replies, I marry but you shall never prove nor make it appear that S. Pe­ter was higher in Authority then the other two; whereas any one, who is meanly acquainted with the most ordi­nary laws of disputing, knows it is his part who is here the Opponent to make his consequence appear valid and concluding, mine, who am the defendant, or Answerer to deny, grant or distinguish onely, not to prove my Te­net or make it appear. Perhaps Mr. H. having got some credit for ordinary sleight pulpit sence, may still in the judgment of some preiudiced or weak understandings conserve his credit by such Evasions; but I am confident that any knowing sincere man will acknowledge that any freshman in the Vniversity would be hist out of the schools, if he defended his argument noe better then the Dr. hath proved his consequence.

He adds a Testimony out of Clemens, which he sayes deserves to be consider'd (Answ. p. 42. 43.) and it shall have it's full desert. 'Tis this, that Peter, Iames and Iohn being [...], honored before the rest by our Lord did not contend for dignity, but those Iames the first Bishop of Hierusalem, which Testimony is very expresse that they all chose him, and did not wrangle in chosing him; but as [Page 259] for Dr. H's purpose, what it makes for that none but himself can tell us, where (saith he) the [...] or prece­dence, that Peter had from Christ, is common to Iames and Iohn also, and so no singular supremacy. The force then lies in the ( [...], or, honoured before the rest) and in it's being spoken in the plurall number in common: I ask then and put it to Dr. H's choice; does this word sound priority or preeminence in Authority and Iurisdiction, or does it not, but some other priority, as of favour, gifts &c. If it does, then it makes these three Apostles supe­rior in Iurisdiction to the rest and puts the rest subject to them, which Dr. H. will (Iam sure) by noe means admit nay expresly denies in this very page. If it does not, then what does it concern our question, which is about Iuris­diction [...] for let the rest be never soe much before S. Peter in all other regards, yet as long as they are not equall'd to S. Peter in Iurisdiction and Authority, still our Tenet is in tire to us and untuch't. Testimonies therefore which can make against us must concern Iurisdiction, and shew an equality among the Apostles in that; of which since this place cannot be understood, as hath been shown, it can­not consequently pretend to tuch us at all. Again admit the honoring above the rest; spoke in common of these three Apostles, signified any Iurisdiction or higher degree of Authority, yet how does it appear hence that one of these three was not honoured above the other two; since the words themselves expresse nothing to the contrary but easily permit it to be so without any violence offer'd to their sence; Cities are honored more then Villages, yet it follows not from these words that all Cities are of equall honor with one another. Soe miserably weak is Dr. H's reason, which is onely declamation pitch, that it cannot be imagin'd, unlesse a man had his strong fancy, how his best testimonies, which deserve, as he tells us, such consideration, can in any manner concern the question for [Page 260] which they are alledged, nor carry home to the meanest semblance or shadow of a conclusion.

But to proceed; having proved gallantly from three being honored before the rest an equality of that honor in all those three, and supposed against his own Tenet that this preference of honor means Iurisdiction and Authority, and so that these three Apostles were equall in that res­pect, he adds, and as such they chose and ordain'd the bro­ther of the Lord; which, sure, is not after the manner of an Arch-bishop and his suffragan Bishops, where you see the upshot of all exprest in his sure-footed conclusion, which sure, &c. depends upon the ( as such) and the ( as equall in Authority,) and that ( as such) depends upon Dr. H's invention; no such reduplicative expression being found in the testimony: so that, as long experience hath tought us, Dr. H's arguments and testimonies put to the Ana­lytick test, are resolved into his own sayngs and self con­fident sures, as into their first principles and the ground work of his testimonies, which are allowed onely to des­cant and reflect glancingly upon his own more substan­tiall, solid and pregnant affirmations.

Thus much to show how impossible it is this testimo­ny should prejudice us; now (though we have better grounds then to stand need to build upon it) in all pro­bability it makes rather for us: for, what strange matter was it or worth taking notice of, that they should not con­tend for dignity about chusing him, if they were all equall in digni [...]y? what soe high commendation is it in those Apostles that none of them strove for preeminence of Authority, if there had been unquestionably none at all belonging to any one of them? Or what novelty is it that persons of equall Authority should doe things by common consent? Whereas, had some one had power to do it alo­ne, and yet condescended to it with the joint-consent and joint-execution of others, the carriage was worth [Page 261] observation for the particularity of their peaceablenes, humility, mutuall confidence and brotherly charity.

After this worthy testimony comes hobbling in a Scri­pture-proof, to make good all that went before, in this form. And so also in the place to the Gal. e. 2. v. 9. Iames and Cephas and Iohn are equally dignified by S. Paul and have all there the style of [...], seeming to be pillars. This testimony hath two parts as it is put by Mr. H. the first, that they were equally dignified by S. Paul in the 9. v. the second, that they are all three called pillars. But as for the first look in the place and you shall find noe other note of their being equally dignified save onely that these three are named together. Hath not this Dr. of Di­vinity a strange reach of reason, who can conclude men equall in Authority because he finds their names in the sa­me place? so that, should he hap to find the King, Tom fool and Iohn a Nokes named all together, presently his levelling logick concludes them all equally dignified. The like acutenes is shown in the second part which sounds to the same time, both being non-sence in Ela. They are all called pillars, ergo, they are all equall, cries the Dr. as if one pillar could not be higher then another. But he ma­kes noe distinction between a community and an equali­ty, nor will vouchsafe to understand that degrees are no­tions superadded to the common species of things; wha­tever things he finds named by the same name in the plu­rall number, presently he makes them go a breast in the same degree of height or worth. He would make a rare man to write a book of logick for the levellers: If he [...]b­serves that peasants, as well as Princes, agree in the com­mon name of men, and are call'd so in the plurall, present­ly he concludes that peasants and Princes are equally di­gnified the Lord Ma or of London and the Geffer Major of Grims [...]y are equall in Authority and dignity by the sa­me reason, because they are both in the plurall called [Page 262] Majors. Nor onely this but Cities, Commonwealths ri­vers, horses, books noses, mountains, starrs, and uni­versally all things in the world must be levell'd into an equality, because the common name in the plurall agrees to all of each kind, by Dr H's paralell logick which con­cludes the Apostles equall because they are called pillars, nay even from their being named together. Is the answe­ring such a pitifull Adversary worth the losse of an ho­vers time, were it not that the sleight-reasond preaching-vogue, which now takes vulgar heads, had got him an opinion amongst many, and so, by means of that, not by any force of his reasons, enabled him to do mischief, unlesse his wilfull and affected weaknesses be laid open. I might hope also for some ameandment from another, but I finde him so long beaten to his slender-woven cobwebb declamation-stuffe, I despaire that all these friendly re­prehensions will make him reflect upon his weak reaso­nings and make them stronger for the future.

He was told in Schism Disarm'd of the same faults; to wit, of proving the Apostles equally foundation-stones, because they were all called so in the plurall; that the Apo­stles were all equall because that common Appellation in the plurall was given to all; that none had more power then another (that is all had equal power) because each sitt vpon a throne to judge, that is had power onely; that the Spirit satt without distinction, that is equally upon each, because the Scripture sayes in common that it sate upon them; that all had the holy ghost equally (by the plowmans argument for the equality of his eggs) becau­se all were full of it. For these and other faults of the sa­me strain Dr. H. was reprehended by his Disarmer, yet still noe amends not hopes of amends appears, in these answering books after he had been so oft told of it, nor by consequence are we to expect any other from him in his following treatises.

Sect. 10.
Dr. H's Pretences of Testimonies (as hee calls them) and his manifold falsification of S. Chrysostome, to prove Iames at Hierusalem clearly superiour to S. Peter.

AS for the point it self concerning S. Iames, I am reprehended for misunderstanding Dr. H. and that he endeauored not to prove S. Iames his priority of dignity and Authority, but onely to prove that in his see James was considered as a Bishop, Answ. p. 43. l. 20. 21. and 27. whereas neither any man denied him to have been Bishop there, nor could it any way advantage Dr. H's cause if this were ptoved; for what follows against S. Peter's being chief of the Apostles that S. Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem, and the Iurisdiction of that Metropolis? Hath not each Ca­tholike Bishop the same now a dayes over his private Diocese, and yet remains subject to the head of God's Church notwithstanding? Again, if he intended not that S. Iames had greater Authority there, what meant his fi­ction of his having the principall place, and giving the sen­tence, that the Rescript is grounded upon his sentence, &c. Surely when one gives the sentence, and the others onely propose, the former must be held to have greater power in that place and those circumstances then the latter. But [ principall] with him sounds noe priority at all, nor can he be held to any thing who hath got once the priviledge to say and unsay again as hee pleases. He was accused of making S. Iames at Hierusalem, superior to S. Peter, which he denies p. 43. blaming me for misunderstanding him, yet in the p. 44. ere the Eccho of the former words were well out of the Reader's ears, he goes about to prove and infer in expresse words from testimonies that Iames in this council was clearly superior to S. Peter; which is clearly [Page 264] contradictory to his former words. But we are not to won­der at what is grown customary and familiar.

Next, he goes about to shew ( Answ. p. 44.) that he hath at least pretences of testimonies that S. Iames had the principall place, the first of which pretences is, that he is named before Peter, and unlesse this conclude our argu­ment from S. Peter's being named first must be prejudi­ced. I Answer, our argument drawn thence for his prin­cipall place among the Apostles insists upon his constantly being named first, and not once onely; which might hap­pen without any great mistery in it. Again, what mean these words, the Romanists argument from the [...], concluding his primacy from being first named. These are two quite different things. The argument from his being first named, consists in this, that in the orderly naming of the Apostles his name is found first placed: whereas, the ar­gument from the [...] lies in this, not that he is first named, but that he is in these words nam'd or exprest to be the first of the Apostles.

His second pretence of a Testimony, as he calls it, is from S. Iames his giving the sentence; and though their own translation rendred the words [ [...]] wherefore my sentence is, by this means making it onely his iudgment in the matters, yet Dr. H. tells us, he still beleeves it signifies the sentence. The first ground of this his beleef is, becau­se 'tis S. Chrysostomes observation that his speaking last was founded in his being Bishop of Hierusalem: what then? could not he be Bishop there and speak last both, without giving the sentence? were there noe worthier per­sons present, or did the thing to be concluded onely con­cern his see, or indeed did it concern it at all? the Rescript, the effect of this consult, being directed onely to Genti­les, which were noe wayes subject to the Bishoprick of Hierusalem. But let us see S. Chrysostomes testimony [...] [Page 265] He was Bishop of the Church in Hierusalem therefore he speaks last, unfortunate man! with whom nothing suc­ceeds, nor any testimony thrives, but either they are against him or nothing at all to his purpose, as hath been shown all over; or when they hap to be full and expresse (as this is (then they come of worst of all. Let him look into their own edition of S. Chrysostome and Dannaeus his No­tes upon them, printed at Eton, and he shall see what is become of his [...] therefore he speaks last upon which onely hee builds; verba haec (saith hee) interpres non agnoscit, nec certè videntur aptè locari; nam, quòd Episco­pus esset, ideò prior loqui debuit, non posterior. The Inter­pr [...]ter doth not acknowledge these words, neither truly doe they seem to be fitly placed: for, in regard he was a Bishop he ought in that respect to speak first not last. But 'tis noe mat­ter, Dr. H. can cast a figure of hysteron proteron, make first be last, and any corrupt piece of an Author become pure Chrysostome and rare sence, so it do but be befriend him at a dead lift.

His second worthy proof is that S. Chrysostome sayes that Iames [...], ordains or decrees those things. As if the decree were not manifestly made by all present but by Iames onely, and called there by S. Chrysostome him­self, p. 795. l. 36. [...] a common decree; yet, be­cause he finds an expression of decreeing, common (as he wel knows) to all that were present, but, (his present occasion not inviting him) not taken notice of by S. Chry­sostome in that place, imediately S. Iames is thence con­cluded the best man in the companie, the giver of the sen­tence, or whatever else Dr. H. pleases. Any thing may be aswel inferd as that which he pretends. Again, I would ask Dr. H. why he leaves out the words [...], from the law, which were imediately joind in context with the former thus, [...], he ordains those things out of the law, by this simple putting down [...] [Page 266] gaining something a better semblance for the ab­solutenesse of S. Iames his decree. But I shall have occa­sion to explicate hereafter this whole place out of which Dr. H.) as his sleight manner is) picks out a couple of words.

His third proof is from S. Chrysostome's setting down the [...] good order observed in their speaking first I will transcribe the place as I find it in that father, and after­wards let the Reader see how craftily Dr. H. abuses it for his purpose. [...]. There was no haughtines in that congregation, but good order, or (as the Interpreter renders it) benè com­posita omnia, all things well composed. After Peter Paul speaks and no man interrupts him; Iames represses himself and do's not dissent. He was entrusted with the principality) Bis­hoprick) Iohn sayes nothing here, the other Apostles say nothing, but keep silence and take it not ill; soe pure from vain glory was their Soul. Where we see the [...] or good order spoken of consisted in this that they did not inter­rupt one another in speaking, as is the custome of haugh­ty and vainglorious persons, but any one spoke without disturbance what he had to say; not in this, that such an one spoke first, this man the second, another last. This is euident by the place as taken in it self let us see now how Mr. H. works upon it.

He had already proved from his late-mentioned unau­thentick testimony that S. Iames had the principall place because he spoke last; then he names the word [...], which hee englishes, good order, in speaking, set down (as he sayes) by S. Chrysostome; Next, he leaves out all those words which might manifest what was meant in that place [Page 267] by good order, to wit that there was noe haughtinesse in that Congregation, that their Souls were free from vainglory which should have shewn plainly that the [...], or good order consisted onely in behaving themselves modestly and peaceably and not in the best man's speaking last. Thirdly he tells us that after Peter Paul speaks but leaves out the following words [...] and noe man stops his mouth or hinders him, lest we should apprehend that the good order consisted onely in this that they did not in­terrupt one another in speaking, which apprehēsion would have spoile'd the Drs good order of the principall man spea­king last fourthly, to hinder the Reader from the same right apprehension, he omitts all the words following that which related to Iames, to wit Iohn sayes nothing here, the other Apostles say nothing, but keep silence and take it not ill, because it was impossible that Keeping silence, and sa­ying nothing, should signify good order inspeaking; which hee pretends is meant there Fifthly, by picking out of the testimony these words, after Peter Paul speaks and Iames forbears, and interposes not, for he was entrusted with the (Bishoprick or) principality, and there ending, he gains a rare semblance for his purpose that S. Chrysostome made S. Iames for good order's sake reserve himself till the last, because hee was the best man; whereas take the whole entire testimony concerning that matter) more then three quarters of which he omitts,) and it is most evident to every ordinary Reader's eye that it is impossible it should signify any such matter, as hath been shown. Sixthly, to come to that imperfect piece of a testimony, and man­gled by him to corrupt the sence which is the soule of it, the Interpreter acknowledgeth not the causall particle [ [...] for] upon which he builds S. Iames his warines not to speak till his turn the last place. Seventhly had Mr. H. been soe candid as to put the words as he found them in the context, related to so particularly by himself, tom. 4. [Page 268] p. 796. l. 28. [...], Iames flies not back or resists not, without recurring to the marginall [...], interposes not, all colour had been wastht of from his sophisticated testimony, even as drest up by himself. For, what cohe­rence make these words in Dr. H's grounds, he resists not, for he was entrusted with the Bishoprick, if the being a Bis­hop they gave him the principall place, and soe made him more able to resist or dissent. Add that the Interpreter to whom his own side defer much render's it non resilit, he flies not back, which makes the marginall word [...] (to which Dr. H. recurrs without giving us notice of it) lesse authentick. In a word the whole testimony manifests one­ly that they demeaned themselves peaceably and quietly without contentions and proud interrupting one another; and the particular line, pickt out by his sence-corrupting art, notes on the by, amongst other things which show'd their humble and peaceable charity, that one of these na­mely S. Iames had a particular charge over the Iewish Sect, whose cause it seemd to be to observe the Mosaicall law and soe it was by consequence his Interest to oppose S. Peter and S. Paul's contrary Verdict; yet not withstan­ding, such was his peaceable carriage that [...] he resists not, or as the Interpreter render's it, Iacobus fert & non resilit, illi erat principatus concreditus, with comes to this sence that he suffers it quietly and flies not back from their fore determination, although the charge he had seemd to engage him rather to favour the Iewish party. But Dr. H. by omitting all the words which could shew the true import of the place, by taking a line onely which could by additional arts give a glosse to another quite-dis­parate sence, by mangling that otherwise-something un­fitt line by adding it after his former testimony of being Bishop because he spoke last; by introducing it with the­se confident words [ and yet more expressely setting down the [...] good order observed in their speaking] then, by put­ting [Page 269] the maimed and corrupted testimony down thus, Af­ter Peter Paul speaks and Iames forbears and interposes not, for he was entrusted with the Principality, and lastly, by shut­ting up close his testimony there, lest the vigor of it should take aire by admitting in the following words; by all the­se numerous evasions, I say, he makes the honest and unwary Reader beleeve that S. Chrysostome sets down their good order in speaking (as hee renders it,) to consist in this that Iames having the principall place forbears till the rest have done, and speaks in the last place as his hig­her dignity and as the Dr. expresses it a little after his being clearly superior to S. Peter required where as the [...] or good order spoken of there, rather signifies noe order at all as Mr. H. takes order; but that he who had any thing to say might freely and quietly speak without feare of being proudly check't or contentiously interrupted by another.

Lastly I would know with what face Mr. H. renders [...] which signifies onely good order [good order in speaking] since 'tis plain from the testimony that S. Iohn and the rest of the Apostles spake nothing at all, and yet they are put there as bearing part in this [...] or order­ly and quiet demeanour here spoken of. So that the words [ of speaking] are added by Dr. H's own imagination to the [...] or good order, and for no other end but to prove that the first should speake last.

This manner of alledging Testimonies may be reckon'd as another head or common-place of Dr. H's wily shifts; and consists in this, that though the whole scope and im­port of the Testimony be against him, he touches sleig­htly and in passing, as it were, at two or three words of it, which taken alone and introduced with a handsome boldnes seem to sound for his purpose whereas the whole import of the place is either point-blank opposite, or qui­te disparate, at the best half a dozen indifferently-applia­ble words found in it, sometimes scarce a monosyllable, [Page 270] as hath been shown all over in Schism Disarm'd, see in particular his ample and pregnant testimony from the ba­re and vulgar monosyllable [ come.] Schism Dis. p. 81.

Sect. 11.
Other self contradictory proofs, wilfull mistakes and wily sleights of Dr. H's to maintain the same point.

AFter this hysteron-proteron, testimony concerning Iames his first-last place, we have another from S. Chrysostome thus put down by Mr. H. [...], &c. for thus (speaking of S. Iames) it behoves him that is in great power or Authority to leave the sharper things to others, and himself to draw his arguments from the gentler and mil­der Topicks, and hence Mr. H. infers James in this coun­cill clearly superior to S. Peter.

This seems terrible; but, to render good for evill and not to wrong Dr. H. who thus baffles us with testimonies, we will make himself the rule of interpreting this place. He tells us p. 43. that he pretends not that any of the other Apo­stles had any greater Authority then Peter, much lesse Iames the Bishop of Hierusalem, who, as he supposes, was none of the twelve, but onely that as Bishop he had the principall pla­ce even in S. Peter's presence. How this equall power of all the Apostles consists with S. Peter having no power save over one portion of the dispersed Iews onely, as Dr. H. affir­med of Schism p. 71. I will not now examin▪ with con­cerns us to observe in it is onely this, that he produces not these testimonies to prove the greater power of any in this councill, but onely the principall places of Iames. This being clearly his meaning, (as it is also more particularly exprest throughout this whole tenth paragraph in the end of which this Testimony is found, what mean the words [...] great power, in which the whole force of [Page 271] his testimony lies? does [...] vse to signify place, or [...] principall, or both of them together principal place as that is contradistinguisht from greater power? How co­me then the words [...] to signify principall pla­ce? That he had in that place great power which the words [...], directly and properly signify, we willingly grant; since we deny not his being Bishop there but that he had greater, or, as Dr. H. expresses it, was clearly su­periour to S. Peter, is both expressely contradictory to himself, and to his whole scope and intention; which was to prove as he tells us not his greater power but principall place onely But let us grant that Dr. H. hath forgot what he was about; and that in stead of proving the principall place onely, he having light on an odd testimony which spoke expresly of [...] power infers there-upon that Iames was clearly superior there to S. Peter, meaning in power; let all this I say be granted and pardoned, if S. Iames we­re superior there in power to S. Peter, I suppose he was li­kewise superior to the rest; (for I fear not that Dr. H. should deny his inference of all the Apostles equality from their being called foundation-stones pillars and Apo­stles in the plurall) then I ask whither Dr. H. thinks in his conscience that these Apostles who had Authority to constitute Iames Bishop there had not Authority likewi­se to remove him, if they saw it convenient? if they had, then they had an Authority superior to S. Iames even in his own see; and, I would ask Dr. H. even in his own grounds why S. Peter should not be his superior still as­wel as S. Paul was yet superior to Timothy and Titus after they were fixt Bishops S. Iames being constituted Bishop in Iudea shown to have been S. Peter's Province; (I mean such Province as he is pretended to have had) as well as the Gentiles, over whom Timothy and Titus were consti­tuted Bishops were pretended to bee S. Paul's Province. Again wee will pardon Dr. H. his affirmation that the [Page 272] Apostles distributed their universal great Province into severall lesser ones. Those famous [...] and [...], and yet giving S. Iames here an [...], or Pro­vince also, whom he holds here to be no Apostle. Or if Dr. H. refuse to accept the pardon and fall to qualify the­fact, then I vse my advantage and vrge him; was S. Iames independent, or was he still subject as Timothy, and Ti­tus are held by himself to have been, even after they; were Bishops? If he were independent, then he went a breast with the Apostles in self Authority, and had his catachrestically-nam'd [...], aswell as they; But, if he remain'd still subject, then his territory being amongst the Iews, and S Peter being by Dr. H's exclusive place of Scripture nam'd Apostle of the Iews in the same te­nour as S. Paul was over the Gentiles. Gal. 2. it is given us by Dr. H's grounds that in all probability he could be subject to none but to the Apostle of the Iews S. Peter, and that in his own see, which was in S. Peter's Province, at lest that kind of Province which he can be pretended from Scripture to have had.

But what should those words of Dr. H's signify ( Answ. p. 43.) that in his see Iames was considered as a Bishop, and so had the principall place even in Peter's presence. Cannot one be a Bishop, but he must sit in a council before his betters? Suppose the Apostles had constituted a Bishop of Rochester in England, and assembled themselves there in conuncil; must therefore the honest Bishop of Ro­chester sit before S. Peter, and the rest of the Apostles? Nay more, let us imagin a nationall council to bee met there, ought not the Bishop of Rochester give place to his Metropolitan the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and let him pronounce the sentence? yet D. H. here out of his ill will to the Pope's predecessour S. Peter, will let S. Iames do neither though he hold's him to have been no Apostle. But 'ts sufficient with him that he is a Bishop in that place [Page 273] to infer him to bee clearly superiour to all there, to have the principall place, give the sentence, and what not? Nor matters it that even according to Dr. H. the others are Apostles and he none, nor how high they, how low he bee in Authority; if S. Peter bee in company, the private Bis­hop shall be clearly superiour to them all; whereas, had he been absent, S. Iames had neither been thus exalted, nor the other Apostles thus depres't 'twas S. Peter's being there which put all out of order.

Lastly, what means his inference of his being clearly superiour in that council? This is the most unlikely point of all the rest; this council (as hath been shown) concern'd not S. Iames his particular Iurisdiction, but the common good of the Church, of which the Apostles were overseer's; nor did this in particular concern S. Iames, who (as Dr. H. here grants) was none of the Apostles. In a word, if he contend that they let him have the principall place out of a respectfull and courteous deference upon another score, as he was our Lord's brother and very ancient, let him bring authentick testimonies that they did so, and wee shall easily grant it. But what does courtesy concern power, or the right to a thing, or place. Thus wee read that Pope Anicetus, gave S. Polycarp the preeminence even in his own Church, yet wee think not that his civill con­descension wrong'd his Iurisdiction; though (I know) if Dr. H. could prove so much of S. Iames here, all were lost to S. Peter without hopes of recovery. But if he pro­ves his principal place by right upon the account onely of being Bishop there, 'tis infinitly weak, and inconse­quent; reason absolutely disclaiming any such inference; and as for authority the very testimonies he brings to pro­ve it are either expressely against him and contrary to his own grounds, or els unauthentick; or, lastly, nothing at all to his purpose, as hath been shown.

His next testimony that S. Iames saith, with power I [Page 274] iudge, makes neither for him nor against us: since wee grant that each here had power, and vsed that power in­voting or decreeing; soe hath, and doth each member in Parlament, which yet consists wel enough with their dif­ferent degrees of power in thus voting, and decreeing; so that, though wee read that one member did it, upon an occasion relating to him in particular, without exclu­ding the rest, wee cannot upon that negative argument either infer that he alone did so, or pronounced the De­cree, unles his expression had something particular, not competent to the rest; As for example, had it been phras'd thus. Let it be enacted, Bee it decreed, &c. there had been some ground that he pronounced the sentence, but his words being onely I iudge, or (as their own translation renders it) my sentence is, which sounds no higher strain of authority nor any thing not equally-competent to any or each of the rest, since each might without any great ambition, say, my sentence is thus, and thus, 'tis impossi­ble any reason unprejudiced can think any more deduci­ble thence then that his particular sentence was exprest by those words.

Thus much for the words, following Dr. H's explica­tion of them. But to give S. Chrysostome leave to explicate himself, let us hear what hee sayes. In the same Homily and upon the same passage wee find these words; [...], he with good reason ordains those things to witt to abstain from things strangled, &c. out of the law, lest he should seem to abro­gate the law: then follows, [...]. And observe how he lets not them hear those things from the law, but from him­self, saying I iudge, that is from my self, not having heard it from the law. Where we have two things remarkable in this prudent cariage of S. Iames, whose circumstances [Page 275] (being Bishop, and Resident in Hierusalem) required on the one side that he should not disgust the Iews his Diocesans by seeming to sleight the law; on the other si­de he was not to wrong Christianity, by making those things necessary to be observed precisely upon this ac­count because the law of Moses prescribed them. To com­pose himself equally in this case without giving offence to one side, or other, S. Chrysostome observes first that he ordains these things out of the law, that is, such things as were materially found in the law; and commanded the­re, and so auoids the Iews displeasure; but does not or­dain them formally, because they were commanded by the law, soe avoiding the wronging of Christianity, but of himself who as an Apostle had power to do such things: [...], I iud­ge, that is, of my self (or own Authority) not as having heard it from the law; that is, not as from the Authority of the law of Moses. This being so, the words cited by Dr. H. [...], I iudge, that is, I say with power, is given by all reason to signify the same as the former explication now layd out at large, and of which this seems to bee onely a brief repetition. For first, why should wee imagine that S. Chrysostome, should gi­ve two disparate interpretations of the same word [...] taken in the self same circumstances? Next, were it not onely a repetition of the former, why is he so short in this latter explicatiō as to passe it over sleightly in these words; nothing neither before, nor after relating to that inter­pretation. Thirdly because the words I say with power are perfectly consonant to the other, I say it of my self, not as from the law: that is, from mine own power not from the power of the law, to which mine succeeds, And lastly be­cause if wee look more narrowly into the place wee shall find that neither Testimony is an explication of the word [...], which signifies iudging, or (as Dr. H. will needs ha­ve [Page 276] it) giving the sentence, but of the emphatical [ [...]I;] which in the first place denoting a self authoritative ex­pression of his power in opposition to the law and it's po­wer, consequently in the latter place, where the emphasis of the same [...] is explicated by [with power] there is no ground imaginable why it should signify otherwise than the forme [...], of my self; or, why it should have any emphaticall relation or opposition to any other Authori­ty save that of the law onely. So that there is not the slen­derest appearance of S. Iames his having the principall pla­ce, or giving the sentence, from the words [...], with power more than from [...], of my self. This self po­wer there spoken of relating to the law's no power nor in­fluence of power in thus decreeing, not to the other Apo­stles lesser power then his as Bishop. But, as his ordinary custome is, Dr. H. picks out any two words, neglecting to consider the true import of the father's meaning by them, and having thus singled them out, he onely touches them sleightly with a grave carelesnes and thinks the deed is done.

What follows in his 12. paragraph craves onely that the Readers would vse their eyes to avoyd his crafts who would blind them, All I need do in answer is to quote particularly the places in which I am sure there can bee no deceit. Dr. H. told us in the last line of p. 72. and the first of p. 73. in his book of Schism, that the Rescript was grounded upon S. Iames his sentence (which a little before he made the sentence) quoting for it, Acts 15. v. 22. My answer Schism Disar. p. 59. l. 1. 2. &c. Was, that in that place there was nothing particularizing S. Iames, but one­ly that then (to wit, after S. Peter, S. Paul, and Bar­nabas and S. Iames had spoken) It seemed good to the Apo­stles, and Elders with the whole Church, &c. Now if there be nothing in that Verse alledged, signifying that the Rescript was grounded upon S. Iames his sentence for which [Page 277] it was brought, then 'tis plain I neither misvnderstand nor mistake. To avoyd all caville I took the Verse as I found it in their own translation, in which nothing was found sounding to that purpose yet all this exactest diligence avails nothing at all with an Adversary, who takes liber­ty to say any thing, I must needs commit two faults in transcribing one Verse, and yet transcribe it right too; so that S. W. faultines is now become the Text, and this Text (beloved) is divided into two parts, the first part is a misunderstanding the second is a Mistake. The first that S. W. would make him imagin the sentence was so his, as not to bee the Councills; whereas indeed S. W. made him ima­gin noe such thing, but onely (as himself told me there) that S. Iames his particular sentence exprest by [ my sen­tence] was the sentence. But this was antecedent to the point there treated, and here vindicated, the question the­re was, whether the 22. v. there cited, signified that the Rescript was grounded upon S. Iames his sentence, which was the thing he produced it for but to this point he sayes nothing, neither vindicating that signification of the Ver­se, nor so much as putting it down: Thus much for S. W. first fault of misunderstanding. The second fault is as hee courteously counterfeits is a farther mistake and that the words [ then seemd it good, &c.] mean a subsequent deter­mination to the Dogma, or Decree, If so, I wonder who was in the fault or mistook? I pretend to prove nothing from it, and so was not in possible circumstances to mi­stake it he pretended to prove from it that the Rescript is founded on S. James his sentence, which he says here, it signifies not, but a subsequent determination of sending men to Antioch, and then when he hath done he kindly and courteously layes the blame from himself, and on S. W. telling him he hath mistaken which when hee hath done hee concludes with a Gloria Patri, how well hee hath qua­lify'd S. W. to consider whether Dr. H. or hee bee wiser [Page 278] or honester. But in case I had mistook in calling those words [ then seemed it good, &c.] the Dogma, or Decree I at lest mistake with good Company; for good S. Chry­sostome was expressely of my mind, who after he had com­mented upon the former Verses he makes his transition to this in these words [...] after wards the common decree follows, and immediately produces this very Verse which the Dr. denyes here to signify the Do­gma, or Decree, but onely a subsequent determination.

Next he tells the Reader (par. 13.) that I would con­clude in fauour of S. Peters Authority from his speaking first, &c. It had been more ingenuous to represent me in mine own language, I use not to build conclusions absolutely upon conjecturall premisses without expressing how far I build on them, as I did there Schism Disar. p. 60. by saying that in reason one should rather think, &c. nor did I rely even for thus much upon onely his speaking first, but that after such debate as had been concerning this ‘matter v. 7. in reason one should rather think, it argued some greater Authority, in him who should first break the ice, and interpose his iudgement, in such a solemnly pronounc'd oration as did S. Peter.’ But Dr. H. omits that which I grounded on, to wit, [ after such debate, &c.] which add's a circumstance much encreasing the rather-probability of his greater Authority; and truly to a man not prepossest with prejudice the Text it self is sufficiently fauourable as far as I pretended. And the Apostles & Elders came together for to consider of this matter; and when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said vnto them, &c. Now Dr. H. will have his first speaking arise hence that he had been accused of preaching to Cornelius a Gentile, and so gives an account of his actions. But the Text it self gives no countenance at all, but looks much awry upon such an evasion. S. Peter's words are, men and brethren you know that a good while ago God made choice [Page 279] among us that the Gentils by my mouth should hear the words of the Gospell. where wee see that his preaching to the Gentiles was a thing already known to the Congregation, known long agoe, and known to have been God's will and choice, the former knowledge of which was enough to sa­tisfy such persons, and to make S. Peter's giving a new account of that action needles and to no purpose. Nei­ther indeed does it sound like an Apology, nor is there any circumstance fauouring that interpretation. The occasion was about the necessity or no necessity of circumcision v. 5. and more immediatly their long disputing upon that matter. Next the action of preaching to the Gentiles is express't clearly here as needing no account but as known by them long ago to have been God's will. And lastly, pursving the same matter, and saying that God had put no difference between Iews, and Gentiles, he comes to the point; Now therefore why tempt yee God, &c. where the word [ therefore] making his former discourse have an in­fluence upon this latter of not obliging to Circumcision, show's it to bee meerly a pertinent, and orderly exordium to confirm and give light to what follow'd, which this vo­luntary Interpreter of Scripture in despite of all the cir­cumstances (as his custome is) will need's have to deno­te S. Peter's Apology or iustification of him self for prea­ching to the Gentiles?

Again, were S. Peter necessitated to iustify himself, how does it follow that he must therefore need's speak first? Do even those who hold up their hand's at the bar vse to begin with their defence, and Apologize for their innocence in the first place! No strength of reason but Mr. H's could have defended it self soe confidently with such a paper-buckler, or have thought cob-webs impe­netrable. Iames must be first, because he spoke last, and S. Peter must speak first because he was to Apologize and give account of his actions. Whereas S. Chrysostome in [Page 280] Act. 1. v. 15. whom Dr. H. most relies upon in this place, makes his speaking first, both here, and in all other pla­ces an argument of his Primacy; [...]. S. Peter (saith he) as entrusted by Christ with the sheep­fold, and as the first of the quire always begins to speak first. What can bee more expressly destructive to Dr. H's tenet, and interpretation of this place, yet (it not belonging to me at this time to alledge testimonies, and object) I went not far to fetch it, or seek it in remote Authors, but took the first obvious testimony I met, in this very father which he chuses here for his best Patron, and in that very treatise which he built upon, as most expresse, for this his altogether-unwarrantable position. Nor consequently can it bee imagin'd but that Dr. H. must needs see how averse S. Chrysostome was from what he would make him professe, in case hee ever look't into the very Author he quotes, and most relies on.

Sect. 12.
How weakly Dr. H. argues to prove S▪ Paul's Authority equall to S. Peter's. S. Chrysostomes iudgment concerning S. Peter's Supremacy.

I had granted that the conferring the honor or dignity of Apostle upon S. Paul was not dependent on S. Pe­ter, and that the place cited Gal. 1. showing that he had it immediatly from Christ concluded very well for that pur­pose, yet concluded nothing against us, who never held the contrary tenet. But, I deny'd absolutely that the di­gnity given was not inferior, subordinate, and in that sen­ce dependent on S. Peter, and that any such thing was de­ducible from that place whence Dr H. pretended to pro­ve it. Now what the duty of an Opponent is in these cir­cumstances [Page 281] every boy in the Vniversity can inform Mr. H. to wit, to make good his consequence, and to mani­fest that the conclusion follows, out of these premises, or that place whence he pretended to deduce it. What does this Dr. of Divinity? first he tells us Answ. p. 46. that S. W. ought in any reason to have offer'd some proof for this; (to wit, that the power given was subordinate, or depen­dent on S. Peter) which he knows is most deny'd by the Pro­testants. A secure method of disputing? Let us put it into a paral [...]ell, and wee shall see what a rare Logician this Dr. is. Put case then that himself were to maintain and prove that Logick were no Science but an Art, and should ar­gue thus; The end of Logick is not Contemplation, but A­ction; therefore Logick is no Science. His adversary (as S. W. did) distinguishes his consequent; therefore 'tis no Spe­culative Science, I grant it; therefore 'tis no practicall Scien­ce, I deny it, I marry replyes Dr. H. but you must prove one part of your own distinction, and manifest that Lo­gick is a practicall Science, nay more tells him gravely (as he tells mee here) that, unles he can make it appear, hee cannot say it is such with any sobriety, after which lear­ned carriage, I suppose the Reader who hath onely stu­died Logick a fortnight will imagin that the whole schools fall a hissing at my notable Adversary, who speaks non-sence with such gravity and sobriety; and acquit his Antagonist from any note of insobriety, save onely his indiscretion to think the answering such an adversary worth his pains.

Secondly he answers, that unles the same Christ that gave him this power immediatly appear to have subjected it to S. Peter, as clearly, as that he gave him the power, which 'tis certain appear's not, this cannot be sayd with any sobrie­ty. Where besides the relapse into the same fault of exa­cting his Respondent should make his own distinction appear, it is worth observation how cautious the Dr. is to [Page 282] make all sure against S. Peter's Primacy. It must be the sa­me Christ which must do this, lest there be juggling un­derhand. A weighty caution? and he must appear full as clearly, to have subjected this power, as to have given it: extreme rigour! or else S. W. must forfeit his sobriety for affirming it. Hard measure! In answer; I am not afraid of all these cautions but tell him more, and stick not to assure him that it equally apperes to me, as it appears that Christ is God. If he startle at this, and demand by what means I can give him such an assurance? I reply, that the voyce of the Catholick Church, infallible, because ever built upon the testification of a world of immediate fa­thers and Pastours, equally ascertain'd all who deserted not that Rule for that point, that [...], or Simon the first signified not an onely-complementary but Effica­cious Primacie in the Church as it did ascertain them, or does the Protestants against the Socinians that the words I and my Father are one signify an vnity in Divine Nature or the Godhead: and the like I say of all other places of Scripture which can be pretended to ascertain it infallibly. This voyce of the Church equally, I say, ascertains one point as the other; by which words I mean not but that the latter point concerning Christ's Godhead is in it self, out of the nature of the thing, of more eminent and im­mediate necessity for salvation then the former; but my meaning onely is that the testification, and recommenda­tion of it, as comming from Christ is equall in the one, as in the other, being indeed the self fame. But perhaps Mr. H. will deny the infallibility of immediate attestation which sometimes he grants at unawares ( Answ. p. 36.) and will have it equally appear by Scripture. If so, then I set an Anabaptist upon his back, arm'd with Dr. H's own words, and let them scuffle for it. Vnles the same Christ (sayes the Anabaptist) appear as clearly from Scripture to have commanded the Apostles to baptize little chil­dren [Page 283] which yet beleeve not, as to have sent them to ba­ptize beleevers (which 'tis certain appears not) it cannot be said with any sobriety that an Infāt ought to be bapti­zed. Thus Mr. H. trips up his own heels when he thought to kick at S. Peter, and the Anabaptist getts the upper hand. Or if Dr. H. runns to Tradition for the certainty of one point, and denyes it's certainty for another, then he is to be askt by the Anabaptist why he should in reason rely upon that Authority which himself grants is taken in aly in the point of Peter's Primacy, and in all the other points in which Catholicks differ from them? and also S. W. must demand by what securer Rule he guids him self when he affirms it hath err'd in some, and not in other points, and why it may not perhaps erre in all if it can er­re in any.

But why must I bee accus'd of want of sobriety, for di­stinguishing without making the parts of my distinction appear, and yet Dr. H. who is the Opponent, passe for a sober man though he says what he pleases at randome, nay more, places in his confident self affirmations the summe of his whole Defence. He tells us here wee must make it appear that this power was subjected to S. Peter; but himself makes it not appear wee doe not, by any other argument then this, that he assures the Reader within a parenthesis, that '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 sav'd his sobriety, and all had been well.

Thirdly, conscious to him self that all hitherto was eva­sion, he would seem at length for fashions sake, as it we­re, to touch the point; but seems onely, after his accu­stomed sleight manner, in these words. Thirdly the place Gal. 1. 17. belongs expressely to the power after it was giv [...]n, and yet then he depended not on him. Attend Reader here is a dreadfull sentence pronounced against S. Peter's Su­premacy; for if, after it was given, it was no ways depen­dent [Page 284] on S. Peter, all is lost to S. Peter's Superiority. First I know thou wonderst why, the point being so mainly important, and Dr. H. having found a place of Scripture to prove it from, expressely too, (as he tells thee) he should not be larger in it citing those expresse words, and then making invincible arguments from them. To lose his advantage in such circumstances, onely relating hasti­ly the place, then touching it sleightly, and not prosecu­ting it home, nor indeed at all, but saying onely some­thing there upon, sounds a betraying of his cause, and so­me preposterous fauour to his therein-befriended Adver­sary S. W. Secondly, thou mayst observe, that there are here two propositions; one, that the place Gal. 1. 17. be­longs expressely to the power after it was given: the other that yet then he depended not on him. The first is pretended from the Text, and expressely too. The second is left in­different (as his blinding manner is) whether it be pro­ved from the Text, or by his own affirmation; If the lat­ter, I must put it upon this score of his 'tis certain, and so it needs no further answer; But, if it be pretended as from Scripture, it shall have audience, and thou shalt hear it examin'd. Thirdly, please to take notice that the Verse Gal. 1. 17. which he brings to testify his tenet expressely, but, by omitting it slubberingly, bids it say nothing, is this, as I find it in their own translation. Neither went I up to Hierusalem to them which were Apostles before me, but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. And this is all: where wee hear no news of any power at all, much less expressely belonging to power; nay more, expressely to the power after it was given, as Mr. H. pro­mised us. Fourthly grant yet all this, that it belong'd ex­pressely to the power after it was given, yet how does this pla­ce prove that the power given was not dependent on S. Peter's as an inferiour degree to a superiour, which is the whole question between us? Nothing is said here but [Page 285] onely that S. Paul preach't in Arabia, &c. ere he went to the Apostles before him. The place there named by him, taken in it self, without relation to the other Ver­ses, expresses nothing of power at all, but onely that S. Paul went to other places ere he went up to Hierusalem; and, taken with other adjoyning Verses, onely intimates this, that S. Paul, having commission immediatly from Christ, had Authority, to preach to other places without demanding first the other Apostles order, and approba­tion, which is both granted by us, and innocent to our cause: but whether the power given were lesse, equall, or greater then S. Peter's nothing is found there at all, much lesse doth the 17. Verse it self speak of power, still lesse doth it expressely belong to it; least of all to power after it was given, as imdependent on S. Peter, as Mr. H. braggs.

To make this yet plainer, the Reader may please to advert that there is no Catholick in the world but holds, that, if our Saviour immediatly command a thing he may be obayed without asking counsell, or leave of any Su­periour, nay even against their contrary command, or prohibition. Next, that our Saviour not onely could, but did give immediate commands, and Commissions to per­sons of different ranks; as to the Apostles, and Disciples to preach to the whole world; and to Philip the Deacon to goeto convert the Eunuch Acts. 8. v. 26▪ 29. These things being so, all shadow of reason in Dr. H's discour­sevanishes, which would conclude S. Paul independent and of equall, and not subordinate power with S. Peter, because he had an immediate Commission from Christ, and proceeded to act according to that Commission wit­hout going to ask S. Peter's leave first. The Disciples, having immediate order from Christ, preach't the Gos­pell, without asking leave, or receiving approbation from the Apostles. Were it not, now a worthy inference to parallell Dr. H's and conclude that therefore the Disci­ples [Page 286] were of equall Authority with the Apostles. But Dr. H. is so wary that he speaks his non-sence, sleightly, sprinklingly, and in brief, that, that lineaments of it not being discovered, the deformity of it may not appear. And this is the most frequent with him of all the rest of his sly ricks, and in a manner naturall to his whole strain of writing.

From Dr. H's reason, and Scripture testimonies wee come to fathers to prove that the power given was not in­feriour to, or dependent on S. Peter's. He appeals to S. Chrysostome for this point, affirming (as he layes it out) of S. Paul distinctly, [...], not needing Peter nor his voyce, The explication of this place is already given here in the paragraph foregoing, to which adde in particular, that if by voyce he means Commission, and order to preach; t'is clear he needed it not, having received it immediatly from Christ; if in­struction of doctrine he needed not that neither, having learned it fully and perfectly from Divine revelation; what follows hence necessarily for equality of power wee see not, and Dr. H. pretends here to prove it by no other argu­ment then onely by telling us within a parenthesis that he supposes it. Both the former interpretations then wee grant each of them fits the words very well, whereas his of equality of power is impossible to bee evinced from this testimony, and inconsistent even with Dr. H's grounds, as shall be shown.

It follows, [...] but being equally honourd▪ with him; to which the father addes in a parenthesis [...] for I will say no more. Vpon which words Dr. H. exults, which (saith he) what it is an intimation of, I leave S. W. to conjecture. Nor is S. W. nice to tell him his thoughts what S. Chrysostome intimated by those words, to wit, that he could have said more with truth, but represt him self as not willing out of reverence to tho­se [Page 287] Apostles to make comparisons of inequality between them; which manifests plainly that S. Chrysostome in that place speakes not of power at all, or equality in that res­pect; since neither was it ever heard of that S. Chrysosto­me, or any els, no nor the most perverse Protestants held S. Paul above S. Peter in power; nor can it consist with Dr. H's own grounds, who Answ. p. 43. l. 25. disclaims professedly any such pretence that any of the other A­postles had greater Authority then S. Peter. Thus Dr. H. thinking he had served S. Peter and the Pope a trick, by making S. Chrisostome intimate that S. Paul had greater Authority then he; hath at once contradicted his own grounds, and quite disanull'd his own best testimonie; rendring it impossible to relate to power, or Authority, for which he produced it, unlesse the opinion of the who­le world, or (which is firmer and more inviolable) Dr. H's. own word's bee a mistake, asserting that no Apostle had greater power then S. Peter.

As for the [...] or equall honour of those two Apostles it hath already been shown formerly from the father's words to signify equall honour for [...] the sa­me efficacity of preaching; and, in this place, both it, and the not needing S. Peter's voyce, relate onely to the suffi­ciency of S. Paul's knowledge making S. Peter's instru­ctions needles: as appears by the words a little after, [...], &c. not as if S. Paul were to learn any thing of S. Peter, &c. And thus indeed the possibility of S. Chrysostomes saying more of S. Paul, or that he was more honour'd, and higher then S. Peter may have good sense; many holding that S. Paul was higher in learning, and the greater Divine. They must bee therefore testi­monies expressing equality in power of Government which can conclude any thing against our tenet concerning his power; for, in other things 'tis no question but that S. Paul [...]ad many advantages above S. Peter; as, in prea­ching [Page 288] to more Nations, in writing more Epistles, in grea­ter sufferings, and many other regards, where of some be exprest. 2. Cor. c. 11. Again, this very Verse which Dr. H. would have relate to power after it was given and it's in­dependence on S. Peter, S. Ambrose whose judgment I shallever preferr before Mr. H's interprets in the same sence as wee take it, to wit, of independence in learning onely; explicating S. Paul's words thus, non fuisse (dicit) necessitatem electum se a Deo pergendi ad praedecessores suos Apostolos vt aliquid fortè disceret ab illis quia Deus ei reuela­uit perfilium suum quomodo doceret. S. Paul says it was not necessary that he, being chosen by God, should go to the for­mer Apostles that he might learn any thing of them, becau­se God had revealed to him by his son how he should teach.

But, because S. Chrysostome hath been pretended as his constant Patron in this particular controversy therefore (though it cannot be exacted of me who am the Defen­dant to produce testimonies, and object) to let the Rea­der see how unhappy Dr. H. is in the choice of his freinds I shall take liberty to manifest, and, I hope, with eviden­ce from two or three places of that father what S. Chry­sostome's opinion was in this point of S. Peter's higher Authority amongst the Apostles. I will not presse here the high titular expressions he gives S. Peter, (Pan [...]g. in Pet. & Paul) how iustly soever I might, of [...], the leader, or Captain of the Apostles; [...]; the beginning of the right faith: [...]: the great pronouncer of sacred things in the Church, [...] the Corypheus, or Head of the Apostles, &c. Nor will I insist much upon my formerly-alledged testimony that he was [...], entrusted with the Sheep-fold, though I might with good reason, the word [...] being a collective and denoting an Vniversa­lity. But,

My first place (which I rather make choice of because [Page 289] it relates to S. Iames whom Dr. H. would make clearly Sue periour to S. Peter in his own see) is taken out of Hom. 87. upon S. John: where, speaking of our Saviours extraor­dinary affection and familiarity towards S. Peter, he im­mediately subjoyns this interrogatory [...]; If this be so how then came Ia­mes to have the Episcopall seat of Hierusalem? he solves it him self thus, [...], because he ordaind him (S. Peter) not Master of that seat, but of the whole world. Here wee see the vast difference between S. Iames and S. Peter's Iurisdi­ctions; one being Master of that private seat at Hierusa­lem; the other, Master of the whole world; whence fol­lows evidently that neither S. Peter's Iurisdiction is limi­ted by any other bounds then the world it self is, and that he had Iurisdiction also at Hierusalem it self, not after the nature of the particular Bishop there, but of an univer­sall Governour or Master of the world; unles perhaps Mr. H will alledge that Hierusalem is no part of the world; for then indeed I shall not know how to reply. Neither let him, as his custome is, run to the Dictionaries, and Lexicons to tell me that the proper signification of [...] is such a Master as teaches or instructs, and so sounds no Government nor Iurisdiction: for he must know that that is the proper signification of the word as it is found here which the circumstances accompanying it determin it to have. To them then let us look, the same word [...], or Master is appropriated here to S. Peter in or­der to the whole world, as it is to S. Iames in order to Hie­rusalem; it being exprest but once, and in construction, refer'd to both. Since then, as applyd to S. Iames it si­gnifies his being Bishop of Hierusalem, and so expresses directly Iurisdiction, and power of Government, it is against all reason to say it can possibly signify another thing as apply'd to S. Peter. According to this testimony [Page 290] then S. Peter was universall Bishop of the Church, and of an illimited Iurisdiction. But perhaps Dr. H. will not al­low the parenthesis in the testimony I answer I put down the testimony here as I found it in the Greek Context set out by themselves and printed at Eton; and, though it were left out, the sence it self putt's the opposition bet­ween S. Peter's being such over the world, as S. Iames was over Hierusalem, which concerns commanding power, and Iurisdiction.

My second place is fech't from his comment on Act. 1. where, speaking of S. Peter's behaviour about the ele­ction of a new Apostle he hath these words; [...] with good reason doth the first (S. Peter) undertake the busines with Authority as having them all delivered into his hand. What can this signify, but that he as first, and as a supreme Go­vernour had power over all the rest that were present; and, who were those who were present? all the rest of the A­postles, and the chief of the Disciples. In what other man­ner he as first can be said to have had all the rest within his hand, and therefore with good reason to have taken the management of that busienes authoritatively to him­self, I professe I cannot in Dr. H's behalf imagine; and, am perswaded himself will confess it (after perusall of the following testimony) that this was S. Chrysostome's mea­ning.

The Third testimony which shall be also my last (for I deem it impossible to finde another more expresse for this, or any other point) is taken from the same place, and spoken upon the same occasion the election of some one to bee Apostles, [...]. What then? was it not in Peter's power to elect him? yes, it was altoge­ther in his power, but he does it not, lest he might seem to do it out of fauour. What can be more expresse and full? The [Page 291] thing to be performed was an Act of the highest Iurisdi­ction imaginable amongst the Apostles, to wit, the ma­king a new Apostle. The other Apostles, and chief Dis­ciples were present to the number of one hundred, and twenty; yet S. Peter had power to do this of himself in their presence Nor is this exprest dubiously by the fa­ther, but as a thing certain and beyond all question, [...], yes altogether, absolutely, or without doubt. Nor ha­ve wee here any divers Lections to diminish the Autho­rity of the words which the Dr. makes a pittifull and little prevailing use of, in his lisping testimonies; nor is it a word, or two pickt out blindly, and wrested to a quite different interpretation, as is his of discovered Method, but a pithy expression of the full scope, and import of the place. Nor is this perfect expression put alone, but seconded with a note, that he did it not of his own single power, lest he should bee mistaken by others to make such a one, an Apostle out of favour; which is the fre­quent, and ordinary carriage of every wise, and prudent Governour. Nor do wee pretend to any higher strain of Iurisdiction in S. Peter then that he could elect a new Apo­stle by his own power which this father not onely grants, but strenuously assertes; nor! in our paralell tenet of the Pope's Authority, can we attribute to him any partic [...]lar act, more supreme, or more savouring of highest Autho­rity, than to constitute Bishops and Patriarchs in the Church by himself, and of his own particular power. Nor, lastly, was this testimony peep't out for in strange places but offred me by the same Author whom Dr. H. most relies on, and in the same Treatise which he most fre­quently cites. Iudge then, Reader, whether it bee likely or no that Dr. H. considering his industrious reading this father and this Treatise (as he manifests here) could pos­sibly remain ignorant what was S. Chrysostome's tenet in this point, and then tell me what he deserves who against [Page 292] his own knowledge and conscience alledges imperfectly, mangles, corrupts, and falsifies this fathers words to gain some show of his consent to his paradoxicall point of faith; nay, makes him, by such leger de main sleights, his chiefest Patron to defend it, as hath been layd open, and discover'd particularly heretofore though he could not but know that no writer extant could be more expressely against it then is this holy and learned father S. Chry­sostome.

Sect. 13.
Dr. H's successe in answering his Adversaries first Testimony. His insincerity in pretending our own law against the Po­pe's Authority.

IN his book of Schism p. 74. Dr. H. told us with Au­thority and very confidently that certainly S. Paul was noe way subordinate or dependent on S. Peter, at Antioch, as appears by his behaviour towards him avowed Gal. 2. 11. that is, his, withstanding him to the face. Discourteous S. W. who gives not a jott more credit to Mr. H. wher he cries certainly, surely, irrefragably, unquestionably, ex­pressely, distinctly, accordingly, &c. which are the ner­ves of his discourse, than if he had said nothing at all, would not budge into assent notwithstanding his soe con­fident assurance to warrant him; and as for Gal. 2 11. by which he pretended to make it appear, he reply'd Schism Disarm. p. 62. that ‘ S. Cyprian, and S. Austin thought otherwise, who interpreted S. Peter's bearing it patient­ly not as an argumēt of his lesse or equall Authority, but of his greatest humility; that being higher in dignity he should suffer so mildly the reprehensions of an inferiour.’ The place alledged from those fathers was this: Quem quamuis primum Dominus elegerit, & super eum aedificave­rit Ecclesiam suam, tamen cum secum Paulus disceptauit, [Page 293] non vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assum­psit vt diceret se Primatum tenere & obtemperari à nouellu & posteris sibi potius opportere; nec despexit Paulum quòd Ecclesi [...]e priùs persecutor fuisset, sed consilium veritatis admi­sit. Whom though our Lord chose to be the first of the Apostles, and upon him built his Church, yet, when Paul contended with him, he did not challenge, and assume to him self any thing, in any insolent and proud manner, as to say he had the Primacy, and so should rather be obeyed by new, and late Apostles; nor did he despise Paul because he had formerly been a Persecutor of the Church, but admitted the counsell of truth. Dr. H. preparing to answer this place (Answ. p. 46.) notes first that this is the first testimony I have brought from Antiquity; as if it necessarily belong'd to me who was ans­wering his book, and showing his allegations unable to conclude, to object testimonies also my self, and so bee Opponent and defendent both; but as it was not my task, so neither do I esteem it so rare a busines to transcribe out of books as needlesly to put my self upon that dull em­ployment; though I know well that annotation-men, and common [...] place book souls, think it the rarest thing imaginable. Next, he tells us that he never doubted S. Pe­ter's Primacy in the sence this holy fathers speaks, any more than of Christs building his Church on him, and that he ga­ve me a testimony even now from S. Ambrose which expres­sely avouched it I remember indeed such a Testimony Answ. 39 in the Margent, but I remember withall that he brought it not, nay would not let it signify S. Peter's Primacy in any sence over the whole Church, but over the Iews onely as appears by the fourlast lines of the same pa­ge 39. how ever wee thank him for granting here that he gaves us a testimony from S. Ambrose, which expressely avoued S. Peter's Primacy in any sence over the Church, so he will promise us, not to repent him self, and recall his grant, which he pretends to have so expressely avouched [Page 294] there. But alas! what faith is to bee given, to the most formall bargain made with such Copes-masters of testi­monies? he had scarce writt eight lines after this profest expresse avouching it but he quite forgets his so solemn promise, and makes the said place in S. Ambrose signify a limited, and contradistinct Primacy saying that by the words of S. Ambrose, S. Paul had a Primacy amongst the Gentiles as Peter amongst the Iews, though the place it self in reference to S. Peter sayes onely that Petrus Primatum acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam, Peter had received the Primacy to found the Church. How necessary an endow­ment is a good memory to defend a bad cause! Thirdly he onely denyes (as he sayes) that this Primacy gave him any power over S. Paul, and that I will remember he had reason to deny it from the [...] and [...] equall honour given S. Paul by Chrysostome and Theophylact. I remem­ber indeed the words, but have quite forgot that he had any reason to deduce from those words equality of honor sprung from Government or power of command, having shown from those fathers explicating themselves that it is impossible the words can beare that interpretation. Fourt­hly, in relation to those words [ he did not vindicate any thing to himself insolently, or assume it arrogantly, as to say he had the Primacy, and rather ought to bee obeyed, &c.] Dr. H. discant's with this glosse, leaving us (saith he p. 47.) to resolve that if he had claimed any obedience at all from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arro­gance of assuming that which did not belong to him. Thus he: soe that the difference between Dr. H. and mee in expli­cating this place stands thus; that he makes those words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assump sit to signify that S. Peter's praise worthines exprest consisted in his not chalenging what did not truly belong to him; whereas, I make it consist in his not chalenging it in tho­se circumstances, though it truly belonged to him; he [Page 295] would have the words insolenter and arroganter so taken as if the pride they denoted did involve falsehood, injusti­ce, or overweening; whereas I contend that they signify onely in an insolent and proud manner, well exprest in our English phrase, by standing upon his point, which well con­sists with the truth of what he challenges and the right of what he assumes.

Ere I descend to manifest that this is the sence of that place, I desire the Reader to review the entire testimony, in which he will do right both to my discourse, and his own memory; and, when he hath done this, I offer him for his satisfaction these following notes.

First that it had been no such great commendation of humility to say that S. Peter did not usurpingly challenge what was not his right; but rather an impudence, and an absurd haughtines to have done it; since then the fathers intend here a particular commendation of S. Peter's mo­desty, it must consist in this that though he might with rigour of right have stood upon his tip-toes (as wee may say) yet his goodnes so moderated his height that he was content with mildenes to bear an inferiour's reprehen­sions; in which great vertue is shown, and, which being put, those fathers suppose that truly he was Superiour.

Secondly, unles this bee the meaning of that place, wee have quite lost the adversative sence which yet is unavoi­dable; for what sence is this, Though our Lord chose him to be the first, yet he did not challenge to himself more then be­longs to him; or what speciall commendation do these words import; Though King Iames, was King of En­gland yet he did not challenge, or assume to himself to bee Emperour of Germany? sure it must bee an enuy of S. Peter's sanctity as well, as of his dignity to diminish his praise-worthines intended here by so frivolous and inco­herent an explication.

Thirdly, the words, non vindicauit sibi aliquid inso­lenter, [Page 296] he challenged not any thing insolently to himself, ma­ke good my explication; for, it had been a very hard ca­se if he could have challenged nothing at all to himself with truth according to these fathers; no not even that which themselves had granted, the line before, to wit, that our Lord had chosen him to bee the first, and had built his Church upon him; with truth therefore he might have challenged that, which out of modesty he stood not inso­lenty and arrogantly upon.

Fourthly Dr. H. grants that a Primacy at least in some sence is granted S. Peter from this place: wherefore the redditive part of the testimony; yet he challenged not any thing, &c. so as to say, he had the Primacy, must be granted to bee true also, or rather it is the self same. Neither is it possible that any man not totally possest by prejudice can imagine any other, but that in these words. Though our Lord chose him to bee the first, yet he said not, or alledged not that he had the Primacy, or was the first, the latter part should be false unles the former were so too.

Firfthly, this being so, the following words in the red­di [...]ive part of the testimony and ought rather to be obey'd by la [...]er Apostles, &c. must necessarily bee true too, since they follow in the same tenour of redditive sence to the adversative, and are joyned immediately by a copulative particle to the former of having the Primacy. True there­fore it is that he might in right expect obedience in other circumstances from S. Paul; and by consequence this Primacy here spoken of was not a dry and barren one as the Dr. would fancy it.

Sixthly the subsequent words of his not objecting to S. Paul that he had been a persecutour of the Church, make it yet more evident; since he might with truth have said so, but of his goodnes would not; since then the foregoing word's of his having the Primacy are true, and the follo­wing ones also of S. Paul's having been a persecutour are [Page 297] true also, upon what grounds can this Adversary of S Pe­ter's imagine that the midle words importing his rather right to S. Paul's obedience which run on in the same even tenour with both the other should be false? or how could he [...]hink to evade by deducing from those words that the fathers left us to resolve hence, that if hee had claimed any obedience from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iusti­fied it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him; nay making this the summe of his answer to that place.

Lastly the concluding words, [ but admitted the counsell of truth] expressing the result of the whole busines, show that i [...] plainly imports an Encomium of S. Peter's candour; that whē the thing objected against him was true, he main­tained not his own saying by Authority, but made his he [...]g [...]h of dignity, exprest there to bee most eminent, stoop to the sincere acceptation of truth; which in a Superiour and Governour is a most laudable carriage, and an unpa­ralell'd commendation. And thus Dr. H. comes of in ans­wering S. W. first testimony; which being prest speaks mo­re against him then was at first intended, being onely brought to show that these fathers thought that manner of carriage between S. Peter and S. Paul exprest Gal. 11. ra­ther argued S. Peter's greater humility then his lesser, or equall Authority.

After Mr. H. had endeavoured by wresting the former testimony to win S. Cyprian, and S. Austin to side with him against S. Peter's Authority he proceeds to destroy the Popes Authority in that Apostles, even from dome­stick testimonies also: His own canon law approved pu­blickly by himself as legitimate shall secretly by Dr. H's inspiration play the Traitour, and under mine now in these latter dayes the said Authority which till now every one took it to confirme. A strange attempt, if Mr. H's strength were equall to his courage. The place is cited in [Page 298] the Decret. out of the 2. Epist. of Pope Anacletus, which makes it yet more home and terrible against the now adays-Popes, it begins thus: Post Christum a Petro sa­cerdotalis coepit ordo, After Christ the sacerdotall order be­gan from Peter and soe goes on in other expressions of that strain soe far from prejudiciall that they are very fa­vorable; and as for these first words, if wee look into the Epistle it self, it makes S. Peter the same in order to Chri­stian Hierarchy, as Aaron was to the Leuiticall, which wee account no small honour. He addes (saith Dr. H.) that the Apostles, ipsum Principem eorum esse voluerunt, would have him to bee their Prince; that is, consented he should bee such; To which words Dr. H. subjoyns in a parenthesis ( where he read this I know not) Thus Dr H. takes liberty to talk ridiculously, yet should I smile at him a little he would excommunicate me again in Greek, and his friends would be displeased. Anacletus lived in the Apostles dayes, and (as he tell's us in the said Epistle) was ordained by S. Peter himself, yet Dr. H. finds fault with this his assertion because he knows not where he read it. Christ, and his Apostles came not with books in their hands, but with words in their mouths, to teach the world their doctrine. Therefore Dr. H. should rather have scru­pled where he had heard it, then where he had read it, and put the force of his exception there; and then wee could have told him there was none in those dayes for him to hear but onely either Christ or his Apostles and Disciples; neither can wee doubt of his immediate conversation with them, who was (as the same Epistle expresses) ordained by S. Peter himself.

These preambulatory expressions favouring soe much our cause would make one think that the same Author could not bee so forgetfull, as to undo vtterly the same Authority in the self same Epistle, nay in the next line, after he had calld S. Peter, Prince of the Apostles; nor that [Page 299] Anacletus was such a Courtier as to speak those former kinde words onely for complement sake, and afterwards when it came to the point, immediately deny all: yet Dr. H. expresses him here as speaking first on the one side, then on the other; and that when on the one side he had gi­ven us the former favorable word's, the false tokens it seems of otherwise-meant friendship, presently (like Mar­gery's good cow which gave a good meal, and when she had done kick't it down with her foot) on the other side, as Mr. H. tells us, with equal clearnes he prevaricates from what he had pretended, and over-throws S. Peter's su­premacy quite. The clear words (as he calls them) are these, caeteri verò Apostoli cum eodem pari consortio hono­rem, & potestatem acceperunt. But the other Apostles in like consortship received honour and power with him. Which he never explicates, nor applies (as his sleighting custome is) but puts them onely down and then triumphs upon them, as if they could not possibly bear any other inter­pretation. Whereas, I make account every good Catho­lick may grant these words without any difficulty, and that they make nothing at all against us. For, to say that the other Apostles received pari consortio honorem, &c. in like consortship honour, and power, does not infer that they received parem honorem & potestatem equall honour, and power, but that as he had received it from Christ, so they pari consortio, likewise, or in like manner as being his fel­lows received it to. Again our tenet granting to each uni­versall Iurisdiction all over the world, grants likewise that each precisely under the notion of Apostle, that is, of one sent to preach Christs faith, had a like consortship of honour and power; each of them being dignify'd with an unlimi­ted Apostleship, and Iurisdiction or power to preach; but, speaking of the Apostolicall Colledge as a community and soe requiring order of Government, wee affirm with S. Hierome that S. Peter was supreme in that respect, nor [Page 300] is there any thing to the contrary found in this place. Again, the words cum eodem appear by their placing to be better joynd with acceperunt, then with pari; for then they should rather have been put after it, paricum eodem, &c. and soe the whole place imports thus much, that though our saviour chose S. Peter to be first yet the rest of the Apostles acceperunt cum eodem received with him that is, at the same time he received it, in like consortship (that is, of Apostleship ( honour and power; which was verified, when he in a common indifferent expression after his Re­surrection gave them their last and unlimited Apostoli­call mission, euntes in vniuersum mundum praedicate Euan­gelium omni creaturae. Going into the whole world preach the Gospell to every creature.

By this it appears that the place may have another mea­ning than that which Mr. H. fancies; now that it must have another, none but Anacletus him self in the same Epistle shall certifie us; who manifests himself as plain a Papist in this point of the Pope's supremacy as either the Cath. Gent. or S. W. Putting down there the orderly as­cent of Ecclesiasticall judicatures after that of Bishops being to be judged by their Metropolitans he rises higher to that of Primates and still higher to that of the Aposto­licall seat or the Pope's in these words. Primates tamen (vt praefixum est) & tunc, & nunc habere iussae sunt, ad quos post sedem Apostol cam summa negotia conueniant, yet the Cities are order'd to have their Primates, to whom the chief busie­nesses (after the Apostolicall seat) may come. And a little after, Episcoporumque causae, & summorum negociorum iu­diciae (Saluà Apostolicae sedis authoritate) iustissimè termi­nentur. And let the causes of Bishops, and the judgments of the highest matters bee most, justly decided by them, the Autho­rity of the Apostolicall seat remaining unprejudic'd. By these two places wee may take an estimate of Dr. H. solidnes, and sincerity, who catches at the shadow of a word, or two, [Page 301] pari consortio, in like consortship, so waxen natur'd that they are easily capable of a diverse shap't signification; and thence argues ad hominem, against us that our own Au­thors, and our canon law, are clearly opposite to our doctrine; whereas he could not but know, and see in the very same place that there was noe testimony imaginable, more expressely for us, or more prejudiciable to him then the said Epistle if wee look after the meaning of the Au­thor in the entire import of it, and not what the many-senc'd or rather indeed the noe senc'd Dictionary inter­pretation of two single words give them a possibility to signify. Neither let Mr. H. think to excuse him self that he argues ad hominem in alledging these words, and soe it imports not his cause at all what the Epistle it self▪ sayes, since he builds not upon it himself, nor allows it's Au­thority; for still, as long as 'tis shown that he imposes upon that Epistle and it's Author a sence which he knew they never intended he can never avoyd the note of in­sincerity; and by how much the thing it self is more un­likely, that the Authoritie wee alledge for us should be clearly against us (as he sayes) or the fell same Epistle con­tradict it self; by soe much 'tis a far more shamefull rash­nes, and an affected precipitation in him to pretend it, and object it, unles upon most evident and unavoidable grounds.

Sect. 14.
Dr. H's trick to evade bringing some Testimony to confirm his own, Wee know. His two-edg'd argument to conclu [...]e against S. Peter's supermacy both from Exclusivenes and not Exclusivenes of Iurisdiction.

IN the beginning of his fifth Section Dr. H. who was soe rarely skillfull in the art of memory as to contra­dict [Page 302] himself neere a dozen times in one point (as hath been shown, Part. 2. Sect. 4.) is now on a suddain become Ma­ster of it, and undertakes to teach'it S. W. whose memory (alas as hee sayes is frail.) But ere my Master gives me my lesson he reprehends me first very sharply for my ill me­mory, calling it my predominant fault, and that railing is but my blind to keep it from being descry'd; nay moreover, this modest man who falsifies, or corrupts every thing he medles with, is angry with me that I doe not blush. Expect (Reader) some great advantage gain'd against mee which can move this Preacher of patience to this passion, who in the beginning of his book soe like a saint profess'd his readines to turn the other cheak to him who should stri­ke him on the right.

To avoid mistakes on my part, and cauills on mine Adversaries I shall put down both our words, and appeal to the Readers eyes His were these of Schism p. 74 Thus wee know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted the Iews and S. Paul the Gentiles. And what it was which Dr. H. (in the plurall number [ Wee] as became his Autho­rity,) knew to be thus, he exprest in the immediatly fo­regoing words, to wit, that whensoever those two great Apo­stles came to the same Citie, the one constantly apply'd him­self to the Iews, received Disciples of such, formed them into a Church, left them when he departed that region to bee go­vern'd by some Bishop of his assignation, and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles. This is that (Reader) which Dr. H. knew to have b [...]en thus at Antioch; This is also the place Reply p. 57. when all els fail'd him, he stood to as a sufficient expression of his exclusive tenet of those Apostles Iurisdictions.

Now my words Schism Disarm p. 62. upon his [ Thus wee knew it was at Antioch, &c] were these. ‘That his first testimony was his own knowledge Thus wee know, &c. but that he put down no testimony at all to confirm [Page 303] the weaker one, of his [ wee know] which yet had been requisite, that wee might have known it too.’ And this was all. What railing words the Dr. find's here which should make him complain so hainously, I know not, unles it were that I calld the testimony of his own knowledg, weak; and indeed if this be railing, despaire of learning more courtesie till Dr. H. by growing wiser teach me it. But my predominant fault of an ill and frail memory for which sha­me must make change colour is this, that I said he put no testimony at all to confirm the weaker one, of his: Wee know, yet afterwards set down two testimonies of that, of which I lately, denyed any. If hee means such things as he pro­duced for testimonies, I set down indeed the very next Se­ction not onely two, but ten of them: But, if he means such testimonies as I exprest my self to deny there, that is, such as did confirm his own Thus wee know I am soe far from blushing at it, that I still make him this bold pro­fer, that, if amongst all the following testimonies there be found any one word confirming his own Thus wee know, and what it relates to, that is, making S. Peter's Authori­ty exclusive to the Iews, and S. Paul's to the Gentiles when they met at the same City but what himself adds of his own head I will yeld him the whole controversy. Nor let him tell me what he fancies to bee deduced thence, but what the testimonies themselv's expresse; the deductions are his, the words onely are the testimonies: let him show me any one exclusive word in any one testimony, and I professe before all the world that I will not onely pardon him the impertinency of the rest, but alsoe grant him all. Iudge now Protestant Reader, who hath most cause to blush: examine well if ever thou heardst such a challenge made to any writer yet extant, and not accepted of; and then see to what a trifler thou trustest for thy salvation; who in steed of replying to the purpose, and showing thee those exclusive words, tells his Adversary that it is a pre­dominant [Page 304] fault in him to chalenge him that he had never a testimony to confirm his own: Wee know; and then, seing himself unable to show any, thinks to evade by telling his challenger, he ought to blush for his frail memory; whereas he should rather have blam'd him for his bad un­derstanding, and bad eyes, neither apprehending nor seeing a word in any testimony to that purpose.

In answer to his pretended testimonies I noted ( Schism Disarm. p. 63.) that they affirmed no more but the foun­ding the Church of Antioch by Peter, and Paul, which ‘might be done by their promiscuous endeavours wit­hout distinction much lesse exclusion of Authority and Iurisdiction.’ Dr. H. answers here; 'tis true, this was possi­ble, and if it had been true had manifestly prejudged S. Pe­ter's singular Iurisdiction and clearly joynd Paul socially with him. It is impossible to gett a positive word of sence from this man, first, he will never willingly use the common words which expresse the question between us, as chief in Authority amongst the Apostles, their Head, Prince, &c. but, as before he used the ambiguous phrase of S. Peter's having noe singular supremacy at Hierusalem, soe now he recurr's to singular Iurisdiction at Antioch; which being doublesenc'd if wee take it in one, he will be sure to evade hereafter by taking it in another. Secondly, let us sup­pose him to mean honestly, that is to intend by it, that S. Peter was not higher in Authority of Government than S. Paul, as the question determines it, let us obser­ve how this quodlibeticall reasoner argues: his whole in­tent was to conclude against S. Peter's Authority in que­stion from his being exclusively limited to the Iews when he met with S. Paul in the same Citie; and now here, though he should grant their preaching in the same city to have been promiscuous, and indifferent both to Iews and Gentiles, yet hee sayes it manifestly prejudges S. Pe­ter's higher Authority still: nothing can come wrong to [Page 305] him let it be exclusive or not exclusive, still either part of the contradiction equally fitts his concluding faculty. Dull Aristotle! Dull Schools, and Vniversities who could never light on this secure method of disputing! Thirdly, let us put this manifest proof into form, and it stands stag­gering thus S. Peter and S. Paul preach't promiscuously to the Antiochians, therefore S. Peter had manifestly noe higher Authority then S. Paul. Good: did not Paul and Titus do the same in other places, were they therefore equall in Authority? Fourthly observe these words, that their promiscuous preaching clearly joyn'd Paul social­ly, with him. Here again wee must give Dr. H. leave to talk impertinently, and be content not to understand him; for if he means that he was socially joyn'd with S. Pe­ter, as his fellow-Apostle, or fellow-labourer, who ei­ther doubts it or imagins that it prejudices us: but, if he means that he was equall in Authority what force of rea­son can make these two so remote ends meet in a Con­clusion: he was his fellow-preacher, or preach't with him, t [...]e [...]efore he was equall in Authority with him; as if the community of things under one notion, could not stand with their inequality under another; or as if wee were not all fellow Christians, yet one notwithstanding of greater dignity and Authority then another.

In answer to his dumbe testimonies which affirmed one­ly that S. Peter and S. Paul taught the Antiochians, and founded the Church, there, I replyd Shism Disar. p. 63. ‘that this might have been done by the promiscuous en­deavors of those Apostles.’ Dr. H. undertakes here p. 48. to remove this might be, that is to shew it impossible that they promiscuously taught the Iews and Gentiles at Antioch. His first argument is drawn from the Inscription of the Rescript, which was directed to the Gentiles, separate­ly from the Iews, that they should abstain from things stran­gled, &c. Let us not wrong the argument, but put it into [Page 306] form as it deserves. The Rescript was directed to the Gentiles, and not to the Iews; ergo S. Peter and S. Paul did not preach promiscuously both to Iews and Gentiles in Antioch; what unseen mysterious wires there are which make this Antecedent and Consequent hang toge­ther is beyond my ghesse, and proper to Revelation: for the words in which he puts most force [...] to the brethren which are of the Gentiles expresse onely that there were some Brethren at An [...]ioch Gentiles besides some others of another Sect, but they expresse nothing at all of preaching, nor of promiscuous, or ex­clusive Authority over either; or if either be intimated here it must be the former of promiscuous Iurisdiction over the Gentiles, since the Rescript was sent to them as well in the name of S. Peter (whom he will have onely over the Iews there) as of S. Paul whom he places over the Gentiles; yet this he calls an Evidence, introducing his second testimony thus. And besides more Evidence which therefollows Act 15. to the same matter, which as su­perabundant wee must imagine he omitts and chuses this impertinent proof even now related for a more irrefra­gable Evidence than all the rest. After this follows his se­cond proof against their promiscuous preaching out of S. Hierome as hee sayes, Seorsim, &c. the Churches which we­re of the Iews were held a part, nor were mixed with those which were of the Gentiles. Which testimony in the space of four pages he makes use of thrice; and it deserves to bee made much of by Dr. H. for it is borrowed from the Arch-heretick Pelagius, and falsly impos'd upon S. Hie­rome, as hath been shown largely heretofore Sect. 7. As for the argument he makes from it wee shall do it the right to put it into form also, which done, it stand's thus. The Churches of Iews and Gentiles were held a part, there­fore S. Peter, and S. Paul could not impossibly preach both to Iews and Gentiles, Thus Dr. H. undertakes to remove [Page 307] my might bee and shew the endeavours of the Apostles at Antioch impossible to have been promiscuous, by such a Medium, as none can possibly imagine the necessary connexion it hath with other termes. What forther reply may by needfull to these words of the Arch heretick Pe­lagius upon another score is already given when wee treated of it formerly.

Sect. 15.
How Dr. H. omitts to clear himself of his falsification of Scripture. His unparell [...]d absurdity that it was forbidden by Moses his law to converse with or preach to a Gentile.

Dr. H. unwilling that the Iews and Gentiles should communicate in any thing, no not even so much as in a common teacher, had these very words in his book of Schism p. 75. wee read of S. Peter and the Iewish Prosely­tes, Gal. 2. 11. that they withdrew from all Communion, and society with the Gentile Christians, upon which S. Paul re­prooved him publickly, &c His Disarmer challenged him to have abus'd S. Peter, and his Iewish Proselytes, and the sacred Scripture too, alledging that in the Text cited by him, as the place where wee read it, there is noe such word to be read as the large-senc'd All in which the Dr. places the whole force of his argument One would think now that a man who had not over come those triviall con­siderations of shame, and dishonour should either have shown that the solely important word All was in the pla­ce which he cited expressely for it, and assirmed it was read there; or els confesse candidly and ingenuously that hee wrong'd, or at least was mistaken in the place he alledged; But Mr. H. is of another Spirit when he is challenged of falsifying any place by his self additions, seeing it a despe­rate or impossible task to clear himself, he either passes [Page 308] it by with a gravely-Gentile carelesnes; or else grows angry, & would persuade his Adversary to blush when-'tis his owne turn. He never goes about to shew us 'tis read there, where he promis't us it was, which was ob­jected and so was his task to clear but instead thereof ( Reply p. 61.) where he undertakes to answer it, recurs to an euasion as weak & unwarrantable as the clearing his falsification had been impossible. His euasion comes to this, that since S. Peter abstained from the Gentile diet least he should seeme to offend against the Iew [...]sh law, therefore since it was equally against the Iewish law to con­verse with a Gentile as to eat the Gentile diet, he must cer­tainly be supposed to abstain from other communion with them.

That it was forbidden by the Iewish law to converse with a Gentile he proves first from the Text, the Iews ha­ve no dealing with the Samaritans, and from the Disciples marvelling that he talked with the woman. What means this Dr. by this instance? The question is of Gentiles; the Samaritans were not perfectly such, nor yet perfect aliens from Moses his law but rather as obstinate Schis­maticks and Hereticks from it, whose conversation by consequence they deem'd more contagious than that of pure heathens; who, agreeing in no common principles or point with true beleevers, were therefore lesse likely to decieve them with false glosses.

Ibid. His second assertion superadds to the former that the preaching to a Gentile was to the Iews as unlawfull as the eating any unclean meat. This he proves from S. Peter's vision, where one is represented by the other; Act. 10. and that without that vision he durst not have come to one of another nation, and that it was unlawfull for a Iew to doe so; as is exprest v. 28. all Communion is interdicted the Iewish & Gentile Church at Antioch, hence it is against the Iu­daicall law to converse with them, or preach to Gentiles. [Page 309] hence lastly the Catholike Gentlemanis unhappy conti­nually in his objections.

See here, Reader, a patern of the Protestant manner of writing in Dr. H's, which is to lay the whole force of their proof upon any harsh-sounding Text & something difficult to explicate, though they know in their conscien­ces that there are an hundred nay a thousand other Texts expresly against their pretence from that one. Two things then I offer in answer to this objection; the one, that it is the most absurd position that ever blurr'd paper to af­firm that the Iews were forbidden by the Iudaicall law to conuerse with or teach a Gentile. Next that, had it been so, it had neither prejudiced us, nor availed Dr. H. in order to these circumstances at Antioch.

As for the first, there is scarce any one point imagina­ble so frequently contradicted in Scripture as is this asser­tion of Mr. H's. For, to begin with the law it self, Leuit. 22. 10. There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing, a sojour­ner of the Preists, or an hired servant shall not eat of the holy thing, where we see supposed that strangers, sojourners and hired servants, which might not eat the passover, that is, who were Gentiles, might live amongst the Iews. And in the 12. v. a much more difficult point is supposed, tow it, of a Priests daughter marryed to a stranger. Again, 1. Kings 8. 41. 42. 43 Salomon prayes that all the people of the earth may hear God's name, and that God would heare that prayer of the stranger who cometh out of a farre countrey to the house at Hierusalem. So farre were they from abhor­ring to convert & converse with Gentiles as they expresse themselves zealous of both.

Now as for examples of their conversing with Gentiles there are so many of them recorded in holy writ, that I know not where to begin to recount them. Spies sent by Iosvah were designed to do it, Rachab the harlot, & her fathers house were saved & lived with the Iews after they [Page 310] had taken Iericho, particularly it is expressed by the sa­cred writer that she or herposteritie lived in Israël even to the time he writ Iosh. 6. 25. Elias conversed nay lived in the house with the widow of Sarepta, Elizeus with Naaman the Syrian; Dauid lived with Achis; Salomon conversed & made a league with Hiram, 1. Kings. 5. 12. the Macha­bees legates conversed with the Romans, and the spartiatae & themselves made a league with them without ever scru­pling at it, though they chose rather to die then eat wi­nes flesh forbidden by the law, which manifests that con­versing with Gentiles was not equally (as Mr. H. affirms) forbidden by the same law as the eating unclean meats. The Iews conversed with Gentiles in captiuity, neither do we hear of any expression of abhominating their civil societie with them. Or that they broke Moses his law in so doing, or any one put to death upon that score. Our saviour expresses of the Pharisees that they did circuire ter­ras & Maria, goe about Sea & land to make one Proselyte, which was impossible to be done without both conversa­tion & preaching. Innumerable other examples might be gather'd out of Scripture of their conversing with Genti­les, by one who thought so manifest a point worth fur­ther clearing; and consequently I cannot think that this Folio-annotation Bible man could possibly be ignorant, but that the contrary to this euading assertion of his built upon one wilfully misunderstood place, was most evi­dent in Scripture.

Nor was onely Moses his law & the whole stream of Scripture-instances opposite to this new tenet of his, but the position it self is absolutely implicatory, supposing the lawfulnes to make a Proselyte; for, how could a Gen­tile possibly come to be of the Iewish law without the conversation & instruction of some Iew. In a word, Dauid commanded together the strangers in the land of Israël, 1. Chron. 22. 2. and, they were found, when Salomon num­bered [Page 311] them afterwards, to amount to one hundred fify three thousand six hundred 2. Chron 2. 17. and those able men fit to work, as appeares by v. 18. that is there were one hundred fiftie three thousand, six hundred strangers, besides male-infants, boyes, very old men, & the whole female sex, which in likelihood were as many as the men. Let us then put them in all, as we can in reason iudge no lesse to amount to three hundred thousand. Now, is it possible that any but a mad man should imagin that either there were none amongst this vast number Gentiles still, since none was forced to be a Proselyte, nor (as far as I ever read) turned out of the countrey because he would not become of the Iewish law; can any imagin there were no­ne amongst this numerous multitude as yet a cathecume­nus (as we may say) and learning his duty when he should become a Iew? or, grant them all to be Proselytes and of Moses his law already, yet, can any man without having great title to Bedlam think that three hundred thousand Gentiles were converted to Moses his law & became Pro­selytes without any Iews very frequently both conversing with them & instructing them; or lastly, that (conside­ring how strict the Iews were in observing the law of Moses) this so frequent-conversation & instruction equal­ly unlawfull according to Dr. H. as eating any unclean diet, could have been used, & yet then no conscience made of it that ever we heard of; no prohibition of that unlawfull custome, no banishing the Gentiles from amongst them; but rather making their countrey a ren­devous for all to come that would; no reprehension, no animadversion, stoning &c. used towards the practisers of this conversation with & conversion of the Gentiles; but it must be imagin'd that Moses his law was publikely and frequently, & yet calmly & quietly broken; and that, in Dauids reign & the beginning of Salomons, the purest ti­mes of the Iewish Church, rather than a Protestant Mi­nister, [Page 312] one Dr. H. should fail in vindicating his unparal­leld absurdity, that the Iews at Antioch had no Commu­nion at all, no not even civill conversation with the Gen­tiles their fellow-Christians, because they were forbidden to do it by the Iudaicall law, of which they were zealous.

Thus much for Dr. H's absurdity of absurdities that it was forbidden by Moses his law that the Iews should ei­ther civilly converse with or charitably endeavour to con­vert a Gentile. Now, put the case it had been thus for­bidden, & thus unlawfull, what likelyhood was there that the apprehension of that unlawfulnes should still re­main at the time we speak of, so as to make the Iewish Christians abhor still all conversation with the Gentile ones at Antioch. For this vision of S. Peter's, directing his endeavours to preach to the Gentiles could not but be universally known both by the occasionall relating it, of which there was great necessity by reason of the scandall which that nouelty caused at first, as also by it's effects, the conversion of multitudes of Gentiles which ensved thereupon. Grant then that the action was accounted scandalous to all that heard it, & that this vision of S. Pe­ter's iustify'd it, & him for doing it, it cannot be imagind but that this relation of his vision was spread far & near amongst the Iews with whom he conversed, specially Dr. H. granting that when S. Paul met him not he preacht both to Iews & Gentiles, he was obliged to publish the said vision as a warrātable excuse of his and the other Apo­stles frequently preaching to the latter. Again, we read that those that were scandalized at S. Peter's conversing with the Gentiles Act. 11. after he had cleared himself, & related his vision exprest their full satisfaction by holding their peace & glorifying God for it v. 18. Now then I argue, either the Iews at Antioch were in like disposition of min­de to be scandalized, seeing S. Peter converse with Gen­tiles there, Gal. 2. or not: if not, then there is no ground [Page 313] why Mr. H. should thinke that the Iewish Christians there held it unlawfull to converse with the Gentile ones; if they held it unlawfull, then I ask again upon what groūds can Dr. H. think that S. Peter should not (as he was obliged) endeavour to satisfy them that it was God's will by declaring his vision to them also aswell as he did to the Iews at Hierusalem Act. 11. Or why he should conceit that the Iews at Antioch were so incomparably more unreaso­nable than the others, that whereas those at Hierusalem, though at first so hott as to contend with S. Peter about it Act. 11 v. 2. yet remaind so perfectly satisfied by S. Pe­ter's discourse as to glorifie God. v. 18. those at Antioch should persist still obstinate & unsatisfied, & not give any credit at all to their Apostle and according to Mr. H. their onely Governour, S. Peter.

Moreover, ere this contest happen'd at Antioch about eating the Gentile diet, it was no new matter, which is that which causes scandall, but a publike & known thing that the Gentiles were convers't with & preach't too, Act. 11. v. 1. we read that the Apostles & Brethren which were in Iudea heard of it, v. 20. that some who were of Cy­prus and Greece preached to the Grecians in Antioch, v. 22. that when the Church at Hierusalem heard of it, they sent Barnabas (to them) to Antioch for the same end: So that see how the Church of the Iews further'd & promoted the preaching to the Gentiles, so far were they from being now scandalized at it. After that, Barnabas brought Paul also thither, & they preach't there one whole year, v. 26. and more particularly to the Gentiles, as Dr. H. grants, at least promiscuously none ever deny'd; nor did this year onely intervene (sufficient time to let the Iews in the sa­me city know that the Gentiles might be convers'd with & preach't to) but many more ere the controversy about the Gentile diet happen'd, as may easily be gather'd from the 2. chapter to the Gal: it being exprest there to have [Page 314] been fowerteen years at least after S. Paul's conversion, which is related, Act. 9. immediately before the conver­sion of Cornelius, Act. 10.

Now, as for other particulars Philip had preached to the Eunuch a Gentile. Act. 8. 35. and in Samatia, Act. 8. 5. and in the same Chapter v. 25. S. Peter also with him preacht the Gospell in many villages of the Samarians. Yet Dr. H after all this publike preaching to Gentiles & Samaritans, avowed to be lawfull by the so long & fre­quent practice & doctrine of the chiefest Apostles & pil­lars of Christianitie, and (which is worth noting) most solemnly & openly profest & exercised at Antioch in par­ticular, will yet after all this have the Iewish Christians in Antioch ignorant that it was lawfull to converse with or preach to a Gentile; And all this, because rather then he will yeeld to the plainest truth, there is no paradox so absurd, so non-sensicall & contradictory, but he thinks it worth his patronage, so it yeelds him the mutuall suc­cour of any sorry evasion, when he is taken in a falsifi­cation or some other unavoidable weaknes.

But, though nothing else could bridle Dr. H. from such extravagancy of insincerity & weaknes, yet, I won­der much his own words could not curb him, & make him if he needs would run the Maze, to do it at least with in his owne lists. His owne words which occasion [...]d this debate, of Schism p. 75 are these, we read of S. Peter & the Iewish Proselytes, Gal 2. 11. that they withdrew from all Communion & Society with the Gentile Christians. Now, if they withdrew from all Communion & Society, I sup­pose they had & used formerly both Communion & So­ciety with them; else, how could they be said to with­draw from it; yet this Patron of Protestantism from whom 'tis impossible to get a word of sence or sincerity, but per­petually he both corrupts other mens sayings & contra­dicts his own, will have them never to have had at all, that [Page 315] from which he tells us they withdrew; since they were equally zealous of Moses his law, before as after the breach, by which law he assures us it was forbidden so much as to converse with a Gentile.

Lastly, is it possible that passion should inveigle any man of reason to such a strange conceit, as to imagin that, each party being Christians, they should avoid even courteous or civill commerce one with another: or, that the Apostles would have countenanced by their com­pliance such an uncharitable carriage? But is this all? let us see between whom this all-Communion was broke; between two Churches; and by whom? by S. Peter & his Iewish Proselytes: Now, since Schism is formally & point blank counterpos'd to Vnion & Communion between Churches, if all-Communion be broke between those Churches, it is a perfect contradiction in terms, to say there is not a Schism made between them: And, since it was S. Peter & his Iewish Proselytes who behaved them­selves actively in this point, it follows by most absolute & necessary consequence, that they must be all Schisma­ticks, and Blessed S. Peter their Ringleader. But 'tis no matter with him; rather shall S. Peter instead of being Head of the Church, be an Head of Schismaticks, than Dr. H. be acknowledged a Schismatick & a falsifier: and, not onely the Authority but also the Sanctity of that ho­ly Apostle be sacrific'd to the Protestant interest, rather than so great a Patron of theirs, and so saintly a falsifier shall want an evasion to soder his crack't credit. Neither let Dr. H. think to escape making S. Peter & his Iewish converts Schismaticks by saying that this was a prudent managery onely ( Rep. p. 62.) & so iustifiable by the pre­sent circumstances; since it is most undeniable that the breaking of all Communion with another Church is the ex­tern Act of Schism; & then, let him remember his own grounds layd against himself in his first Chapter of Schism [Page 316] p. 10. that the matter of fact onely is to be considered not the causes or motives. Since eo ipso that fact is Schism, nor can be iustifi'd from being such by any causes, motives, or circumstances what-soever; Now then, since the fact of breaking from all-Communion which the Gentile Church, that is of Schism from it is in expresse terms imputed to S. Peter & his Iewish Proselytes by Dr. H. I expect then what possible motive this Author can pretend to alledge sufficient to excuse them from Schism, whose doctrine it is in the place cited that no motive or reason was suffi­cient to render matter of fact of this nature excusable or iustify it from being Schism, nay damnable, worse then sacriledge, Idolatry, &c. as the fathers there cited by D H. avouch.

The summe then of this part of Dr. H's defence is, that he takes no notice at all of his falsifying by adding the onely important & large-senc't word All to the Scri­pture, nor attempts to clear himself of it; but, instead of doing this, he goes about to maintain his position coun­terfeited to be found there to wit, that Iewish Christians withdrew from all-Communion with the Gentile ones, by this argument that it was equally forbidden by Moses his law to converse with or preach to a Gentile, as to eate their diet. A paradox so incomparably & notoriously absurd, that it is at once both perfectly opposite to the law it self, repugnant to innumerable examples from Scri­pture to the contrary, & the universall practice of the Synagogue; injurious to the Iewish Church in it's purest times, making them frequently, publikely & uncon­trolledly break the law in a point (as he saies) equally for­bidden as eating the Gentile diet; implicatory in terms, supposing once the lawfulnes of making a Proselyte; im­pertinent to his present purpose & circumstances were it granted; expressely contradictory to his own words, about which the present contest was raised; derogating from [Page 317] those ancient Primitive Christians all charity, nay even in the least and sleightest degree; and lastly, beyond all evasion, making them perfectly Schismaticks & S. Pe­ter their Ring-leader; and that, proceeding on Dr. H's own grounds. Nor hath he any thing to counterpo [...]ze this heap of absurdities of the Seuenteens, but onely a mis­understood place of Scripture, of which himself must be the Interpreter; which is the right Protestant Method, who build their faith upon any Text which seems at first sight to make for them or is hard to explicate; although universall Tradition of the foregoing Church, importing, involving & bringing downe to us all imaginable motives of the contrary truth evidence that Interpretation to be impossible. But 'tis no matter what Dr. H. does or sayes; if he can but talk any thing gentilely & sleightly, the gra­ve negligence must supply the want of sence & Truth; especially if hee but shut upwith a victorious Epiphone­ma, pronounced with a serious-sobersadnes ( Repl p. 61. l. vlt.) Thus unhappy is this gentleman continually in his objections, all is well, and his sleight-sould Sermon-ad­mi [...]ers take that to be the rarest Nectar of reason, which, if examin'd is the most sublimated quintessence of contra­diction-absurdity, as hath amply been shown.

Now as for S. Peter's words that it was unlawfull for a man that was a Iew to keep company or come to one that is of ther Nation, upon which onely he build his position, otherwise altogether destitute of any shadow of proof. I answer, that the Scribes & such like pretenders to a pre­ciser Kinde of holines, had lately introduced many cu­stomes of their owne forging, under the notion of Tra­ditions (of some of which they are accused by our saviour) and obtruded them upon the consciences of the Iews to be religiously observed; especially at Hierusalem the Ren­devous of Iewish Doctors, and the place where their do­ctrine had more immediate influence upon the mindes of [Page 318] of thei Auditors. Of those precise customes this was one, of not going to a Gentiles house, or conversing with them. To this, amongst others, S. Peter was inured by long education, in so much that though he heard our B. Saviour with his own mouth give them commission to go to preach all over the world, in vniuersum mundum and omni creaturae, to every creature; yet, finding employ­ment enough amongst those of the Circumcision, he ne­ver attempted it till by a vision he was immediately set upon it by Almighty God, especially the obligation to his country laying a stronger ty upon him, and having re­ceived order to preach first to the Iews untill they shew'd themselves unworthy, he needed a vision to tell him when that time came, & circumstances were ripe for it. In li­ke manner we read that S. Paul, though chosen particu­larly to preach to the Gentiles, Act. 9. 15. yet he affirmed, Act. 13 46. that it was necessary that the words of God should first have been spoken to the Iews, & did not turn to the Gentiles but upon their rejecting him.

By unlawfull then in this place I take not to bee mean't, not against the law of Moses; but, what their Teachers and Doctors, who govern'd their Consciences, bore them in hand was unlawfull: in the same manner as wee now call many things unlawfull, which are not found forbid­den by Christ's law, but which our Doctours and Ca­suists iudge to bee unlawfull. Again, wee read that though the Apostles and Brethren that were in Iudea had heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God. Act. 11. v. 1. yet the second verse letts us know of none that found fault with him save those at Hierusalem onely; and that, not meerly upon the account of going to the houses of Gen­tiles, but of eating with them also, as the third verse ex­presses. But let their zeal have been never so hot to main­tain this new-fangled apprehension, and let it bee never so universall to abhorre the conversation of Gentiles, [Page 319] whiles they remain'd Gentiles; yet, it is the strangest fan­cy that ever entred into a rational head, to imagin that they should still retain the same uncharitable feud to­wards them after they were become Christians and their fellow-Brothers in him, in whom they were taught the­re was no distinction of Iew nor Gentile. Which sounds a far greater absurdity in a Christian eare, than to say that they likewise abhorr'd still the conversation of the Prose­lytes to the law of Moses after their conversion; & that those one hundred fifty three thousand workmen who lived dispersed among the Iews in Salomon's time, nei­ther converst with their neighbour Iews, nor took dire­ctions how to order their labour towards the building of Salomon's Temple, but did their work by instinct and the guidance of the private Spirit, as Dr. H. interprets Scripture.

Sectio 16.
How Dr. H. omitts to clear himself of falsifying the Apo­stolicall Constitutions, and to take notice of all the Exce­ptions brought against that Testimony in Schism Disarm'd. His acute manner of arguing. As also how hee brings a Testimony against him in every particular to make good all his former proofs; and by what art hee makes it speak for him.

THe next Testimony of Mr. H's which comes under examination, is taken from the writer of the Apo­stolicall Constitutions, who tells us (according to Dr. H. of Schism, p. 75.) that Evod [...]us & Ignatius at the same time sate Bishops at Antioch, one succeeding S. Peter the other S. Paul, one in the Iew [...]sh, the other in the Gentile Congregation. Now if that writer tells us no such thing, no not a word of this long rabble, is it possible Dr. H. can deny himself to be a manifest & wilfull falsifier? [Page 320] Schism Disarm'd challeng'd him upon this occasion of a manifest falsification; and that that writer neither tells us (as Dr. H. pretended) that they sate at the same time Bishops in whichwords consists the greatest force of the Testimony: nor that they succeeded the Apostles, with that distinction; nor that the Iewish & Gentile Congrega­tions were distinct, much lesse that those Apostles Iuris­dictions at Antioch were mutually limitted, which indeed onely concern'd his purpose; but onely that they were or­dained by the Apostles, The text being onely this Antio­chiae Euodius ordinatus est a me Petro, Ignatius a Paulo: At Antioch Euodius was ordained by me Peter, Ignatius by Paul, without the least word before or after concerning that matter; Of all these falsifications & voluntary addi­tions Schism Disarm'd p. 65. 66. challenged Mr. H. yet, in return he offers not one word to clear himself Reply c. 4. Sect 7. the place whither ( Answ. p. 48. l. 31. 32.) hee r [...]ferd mee for answer to this point; nor to shew us that that writer tells us what he so largely promist us; of Schism p. 75. onely in his Answer p. 48. he assures us that in his Reply, the whole matter of Euodius & Ignatius is further clea­red (as if he had cleared it already) and S. W' s elaborate misunderstandings forestall'd; he should have said misrea­dings, for it was mine eyes & not mine understanding which fail'd me, if he had not added to this testimony all which made for his purpose.

Foure observations I shall recomend the Reader to let him see that this insincerity in Dr. H. was affected & vo­luntary. First, the words in the testmony importing their Ordination, neither make against us nor touch our contro­versy. Next, all the words added of his own head are ma­de use of by him, & solely-important in this occasion. Thirdly, that he never particulariz'd the place in the Au­thor where this testimony was to be found, which he or­dinarily vses, but leaves us to look for it in a whole [Page 321] book, hoping we might either be weary in looking it, or misse, & so [...] himself in the mean time escape scot-free. Lastly, he so iumbles together the two different letters (as his comon trick is) that no man living can make any ghesse which words are the testimonies, which his own; and, should we pitch upon any to be the testimonies, rely­ing upon the translation letter, in that part they sate at the same time Bishops, we finde the most considerable word same put in a lesse letter, as if it were part of the citation, whereas no such word nor any thing to that sence was found in the Author. And thus Dr. H. (as he professes Answ. p. 18. speaks the full truth of God.

But instead of clearing himself from being an arrant fal­sifier, Dr. H. (as his custome is) attempts to sh [...]w him­self an acute Doctour; and when it was his turn to sh [...]w us the pretended words in his testimony, he recurs to the defence of the position it self. And first he cries quits which the Catholike Gentleman who, as he tells us in a drie phrase ( Repl. Sect. 7. num. 1.) casts one stone at all his buil­dings together. And what stone is this? He challenged him not to have brought one word out of Antiquity to pro­ve the with drawing from all Communion (already spoken of) to have been the cause of the division of the Bisho­priks in Antioch & Rome.

This is the Catholike Gentleman's stone, as he calls it, which levell'd by him at such an impenetrable Rock of solid reason as Mr. H. rebounds upon the thrower's head with this violence.

First that he manifested from Antiquity in his book of Schism that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter & S. Paul, Repl. p▪ 63 I answer, 'tis graunted; but what is this to the point; since this might easily be performed by their promiscuous preaching, without exclusion of Iu­risdiction, or breaking of all Communion between Chur­ches.

[Page 322] Secondly, that he manifested there, that there were two Churches at Antioch, the one of the Iews the other of the Gen­tile Christians. I answ. he hath not one testimony in the whole book of Schism which expresses this position nor in these later books, save onely that from the Arch-heretick Pelagius, already reply'd to, Sect 7

Thirly that in those Churches at the same time sate two distinct Bishops, Euodius & Ignatius. I answer this is onely prou'd from his owne falsification of the testimony from the Apostolicall Constitutions; not a word of the fitting together of two in those two distinct Churches found ei­ther in that or any other place, as yet cited by him. Thus the Catholike Gentleman's stone sticks yet insost rea­son'd Dr. H. for want of solidnes in the place it light to reverberate its motion.

Now let us see what Dr. H. who braggs so much of a Hending his Adversaries [...] hath left unreply'd upon in this his Answer to Schism Disarm'd: in which Treatise, p. 66. I objected all these weaknesses in this one point.

First, that were it granted that two sate together it would not serve his turn a iott the more. For what would he in­fer hence? that S. Peter & S. Paul were distinct Bishops there also? Grant this too, what follows hence against the Pope's Authory? I know his intent is to conclude here­upon that, therefore S. Peter & S. Paul had exclusive Iurisdictions at Antioch, therefore S. Peter's Iurisdiction was limited, therefore the Pope had not an illimitted one: but how doth the one's presiding over Iews the other over Gentiles argue a limitation of that power it self, or at all necessarily touch the interior Right? [...]uppose I should deny his consequence, & using Dr. H's word ( Repl. p. 62. upon a like occasion at Antioch) say that this might have been onely a prudent managery, a wise ordering de­signed by S. Peter & S. Paul; I wonder how he would pro­ceed [Page 323] with his argument & prove his consequence that it was intended for a reall not seeming counter-Iurisdiction. I am sure as yet he hath not produced any thing at all to disannull this instance of his arguments in consequence, nor strengthen'd his proof against this obvious pretence that it might have been thus otherwise. Again, was there not room enough in Antioch (and the like may much bet­ter be said of Rome) for two to preside & preach in? could not they divide the City into two halves for the better convenience of their Auditours coming promiscuously to hear their doctrine, but there must necessarily be a di­stinction of the Iewish & Gentile caetus, the Iewish under one & the Gentiles under tother, as Dr. H. expresses it Answ. p. 48. lin. vlt.) telling us there that there could not be two Bishops in Rome without this distinction. Further, let us suppose that the Iewish Christians would not mingle with the Gentiles in the exercise of divine worship where there was this scandalizing diversity of their ceremonies (for I cannot think that, holding them their fellow Chri­stians, they should be so uncharitable as to abhorre their Communion as much as if they had been excommunica­te, Schismaticks, Hereticks, or as if they had still re­main'd Heathen as Dr. H. contends) yet I see no impos­sibility that S. Peter in his half of the City should some times go to Iewis Congregation, sometimes to the Gen­tile; & S. Paul do the like in his; So that still Dr. H's supple bow of reason is farre from carrying home to his mark, or concluding what he purposed. Nor let him ob­ject that this distinction of the City into two parts, signi­fies exclusion of Iurisdiction when they met: It infers no more but that they acted prudently in so doing, & so as no wise man can be imagind' willing to do otherwise; sin­ce common sence teaches us that if two Preachers come to one City & each be able to perform his office without the assistance of the other, it were the height of impru­dence [Page 324] 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 busines whose force it is not possible S. W. should dicert; though neither it nor any testimony else ex­presse a syllable of S. Peter being over [...]ews onely, S. Paul over Gentiles, is the point to be proved by it; but no where exprest save onely in his own falsification interdi­cting them all Communion, & his own Thus we know it was at Antioch. But to return to his prudent neglects.

‘Secondly he was told, that the testimonies alledged by himself out of Eusebius and Origen calling Ignatius the second, & out of S. Ierome calling him the third, make against the sitting of those two together, his ex­presse & important pretence.’ Yet he never answers these self opposed testimonies; but instead of doing so adds two more Reply p. 63 out of Simeon Metaphrastes & an Anonymus ancient writer, to witnes the same & confirm my objection.

‘Thirdly he was told that he will never finde S. Paul was accounted a parcell-Bishop in Antioch that he should have a properly call'd successor there, &c. In or­der to which, he offers us no reply save onely his owne former weak fancy.’

‘Fourthly that he undid all he had said with a testimo­ny of Theodoret, which affirm'd in expresse opposition to his former place out of the Apostolicall Constitutions, that Ignatius was ordain'd by S. Peter.’ To which opposi­te testimony instead of answering, he (seconds it with a another Reply p. 63. lin. vlt.) was ever such a disputant heard of.

[Page 325] ‘Lastly, it was objected that the Apostolicall Consti­tutions, upon which he builds, was a book excepted against by all sides; & Theodoret, who opposes it in this point, was an Author beyond exception, and that the­refore wee have far more reason to iudge that S. Peter ordain'd Ignatius also then Evodius onely.’ Whence I fur­the deduce that if, in the Drs. grounds, Ignatius were over the Gentiles, & ordain'd by S. Peter, as Theodoret his better Author testifies, S. Peter by consequence was over the Gentiles also in Antioch. Now what reply attempts Dr. H. against an objection which enervates all the who­le Authority he relies on & shows him baffled in his own testimonies? not a word: yet, he tells us in Greek that he attends his aduersaries [...], that is, step by step; though hee still auoids him then most warily, when his attendance is most necessary.

Nothing therefore hath Mr. H. reply'd to those con­cerning Exceptions of mine, nothing to his own testimo­nies in particular, though shown to have been against him. Yet somthing he must say to every thing in one man­ner or other; that's resolu'd; except it be to shew the fal­sifying words in a testimony where they are not found, in which case he is wisely silent His argument from these contradictory places is founded ( Repl. p. 64) in recon­ciling them and making them friends; the difference he tells us is but seeming & he goes about to remove it; which way of arguing, in the first place is perfectly absurd, unles he first prove the necessity of each testimonies being true, which he never attempts; otherwise, to go about to pro­ve a truth by reconciling falshoods, or truths with fal­shoods, is such a new inuention or arguing, that Dr. H. hath all the right & reason in the world to get a Patent of it, that none should use it without his licence. Second­ly, the Authority of the Apostolicall Constitutions is ac­knowled'gd to be corrupt by the Protestants themselves; [Page 326] &, consequently, unles he vindicate first that his main testimony fetc'ht thence is true, for any thing he knows he goes about to reconcile a truth with a falshood; at least Theodorets Authority standing against it, it is iustly presu­med to be such, which makes Dr. H's plea for his said Patent stronger. Thirdly is it such news that Authors should be of severall opinions? or, was there ever Pro­testant till Dr. H. who held so, even of the fathers them­selves; yet, contrary here to his own Grounds, he will have none of them mistaken though they contradict one another; he hath inuented a fancy how to reconcile their sayings, ere he knows or proves whether they were mi­staken or no in an obscure matter of fact done long be­fore their time. Nor cares he what this reconcilement of contradictions costs, though it make all Antiquitie blind, [...]ll his new fangled cōcied or Scholion which he putts down of Schism p. 79. l. 12. gave light to the world, yet as long as he can by screwing & wresting make them favour his cause, he is a man of peace & contradictions shall shake hands and bee friends.

But who is the Vmpire to decide this contradiction-quarrell? one, God knows whom, called Ioannes Male­la Antiochenus: and the testimony from him is found in a manuscript in Oxford Library: that is, we may goe look it God knows where. Yet we will trust Dr. H. for once in a testimony not extant, who hath deceived us so often in those which were publike & easie to be examined, and ta­ke the place as we find it by himself. [...], &c. when Peter went to Rome, passing by Antioch the Great, Euo­dius Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch happend' to dy & Ig­natius received the Bishoprick, S. Peter ordaining & en­throning him. Was there ever testimony imaginable more expresse against this very point in controversie and that in every particular than this he alledges as the knot of all his proof. See his booke of Schism. p. 75. l 26. 27. where [Page 327] he contends from the Apostolicall Constitutions that Euo­dius & Ignatius sate at the same time Bishops of Antioch. See Ioannes Malela's testimony, which was to button toge­ther all the rest, and conclude the controversy [ Euodius happen'd to dy & Ignatius succeeded him in the Bishoprick.] See in the true testimony from the Apostolicall Consti­tutions put downe Schism Disarm'd p. 65. because Dr. H. had falsify'd it, Ignatius ordinatus est a Paulo, Ignatius was ordain'd by Paul: See Malela [Ignatius received the Bis­hoprick, S. Peter ordaining him. Lastly see in Malela's te­stimony Bishoprick in the singular, Bishop and Patriarch in the singular; whereas Dr. H. all over makes it his who­le design to prove Bishops, two Bishopricks at once in the same City. Observe the word Patriarch, & ask Dr. H. whether he thinks in his conscience there were two Pa­triarchs at Antioch one over Iews, another over Gentiles, or where cā he even preten'd to have read or heard of such an absurd tenet. In a word there is scarce any proposition affirm'd by Dr. H. in order to this present point, but finds here it's expresse contrary; and yet he brings this as the upshot of all his proofs, and as that where in he mean't to make all ends meet; introducing it here in these con­fident terms, ( Repl. p. 64. l. 2. 3.) that the seeming diffe­rence of his former testimonies is removed by Io. Malela Antiochenus, who thus sets down the whole matter: whereas indeed the matter he sets down is wholy contrary to Mr. H. Does this man care a pin with what false pretences he mocks his Reader & abuses his very eyes?

But was there no design in alledging this testimony, or can he make it, though quite contrary to his tenet, serve his turn for nothing? yes; for, there is nothing so con­tradictory to Dr. H's doctrine in it's self, but by cooking it up hand somely he can make his advantage of it. He wedges in two parenthesisses of his own in the middle of the testimony and then all is evident: The testimony then, [Page 328] as by him put down, stands gaping thus; when Peter went to Rome passing by Antioch the Great, Euodius Bishop & Patriarch of Antioch happen'd to dy, and Ignatius (who was, as was said, first constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there) received the Bishoprick (that, I suppose, must now be of the Iewish Province also, over which Euodius had been in his life time) S. Peter ordaining & enthroning him. Now, as for the testimony it self, taken alone it is expresly against him, as hath been shown; the onely ver­tue & force of it lies in the parenthesisses; and if we examin these, the totall strength of the first lies in the words, as was said, that is, by himself, for he hath produced as yet never a testimony which says Evodius was constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles; the sole force of the latter pa­renthesis lies in the all-conquering, I suppose, which is per­fectly gratis, and without all show of any Ground either in Antiquitie or comon sence, as hath been largely ma­nifested. And so by this mean's, we have gotten two other very strong testimonies to confirm his own we know; to wit, as was said and, I suppose; nor have we one expresse word from any testimony save from his own knowledge, his own saying, and his owne suppositions. The result is that this testimony, the upshot & knot of all the rest, is it self absolutely against him, and onely brought to countenan­ce his parenthesisses, not with it's influence, but with it's presence; So that his testimonies are as it were the Stock upon which he ingrafts his owne sayings either in the mid­dle by way of a parenthesis, or by means of an, Id est, in antecedent or subsequent words; sometimes with distin­ction, sometimes with none; and so, it matters not with him what nature the Stock it self is of, since the fruit of testifying in favour of his tenet is to be expected from the accessory scyons or spriggs (his voluntary additions) and so need not resemble the Stock, which may be of an in­different, perhaps contrary nature.

Sect 17.
How Dr. H. sleightly waves to strengthen his six Testimonies shown invalid by Schism Disarm'd; and, in particular, what work hee makes with a Testimony from S. Prosper.

HIs six following testimonies to prove that S. Peter was over Iews onely at Rome, and S Paul over Gen­tiles are shown ( Schism Disarm'd, p. 67. 68. 69. first not to have a word in them to that purpose, nor intimating any thing which may not aswell & much better infer a promiscuous Authoritie than an exclusive one; since they onely signify that they founded the Church there, and we­re Apostles & Bishops there: Secondly, he was accused there for calling those obscure testimonies Evidences for the exclusive Iurisdiction of these Apostles one over Iews the other over Gentiles; whereas, there was not one ex­clusive particle in any one of them, nor so much as Iew or Gentile named by them. Thirdly, in order to this, the notion of an Evidence was set down & manifested how far his twilight-testimony-proof were from the pretence of being such. Fourthly, his sly gullery of the Reader to his face, by endeavouring to make him beleeve that the testimonies were parallell to his owne confident affirma­tion that it was evident, was there layd open, & shown to be a deceit: His words ( of Schism p. 76) being, the same is as evident at Rome, where these two Apostles met again, and each of them erected & managed a Church S. Peter of Iews, S. Paul of Gentiles: whereas the testimonies which he usher'd in with so many 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 concern'd is reviewed Repl, c. 9. [Page 330] where nothing is found to that purpose, nor any where else, save onely, in the Sect. 7. par. 6. Where when I ca­me to look in expectation of some return to my exce­ptions, I found that he onely enumerated briefly the sa­me testimonies of his former book, his irref [...]agable one (as he calls it) from the Popes [...]eales, his falsification (as shall be seen ere long) concerning Linus & Clemens, which he tells us again are evidences, that they clear that part which concerned Rome, and then having made this learned mock-Reply that is, said over again out of his former book what had been excepted against by mee, & related us back in the margent to that very place in it which I had impugned as thus manifoldly weak he ends with these words, that Sure there can be no need of farther proofs or testimonies from Antiquity in this matter. That bold fac'd word Sure is a Sure card, and Mr. H's Ace of th' trumps, there is no resisting it; when the game seems quite gone, it retrives the losse & carries all before it. My answer was that all which those testimonies intimated might have been performed by promiscuous preaching of each both to th' Iews & Gentiles; the summe of his Reply is onely this, that Sure it cannot, I objected that those testimonies were weak & concluded nothing at all of such a distinction he answers that they are clear, are evi­dences, & that Sure there can need no farther proof; So that we have now got a fourth express proofe added to his Wee know, I say, & I suppose, to wit his owne [ Sure,] the Su­re naile fasten'd by the master of the Protestant Assem­bly, Dr. H.

As for the testimony of S. Prosper, in which he was accused to render Ecclesiam Gentium, the Church of the Nations, lest S. Peter & S. Paul should both have med­dled with Gentiles in Rome, which words should they be render'd the Church of the Gentiles must necessarily follow, he referts me to his Repl. p. 65. parag. 10. for satisfaction; [Page 331] where he acquaints me with his desire that the truth of his interpretation may be consider'd by the words cited from him. The words are these, in ipsâ Hierusalem lacobus, &c. Ia­mes at Hierusalem, Iohn at Ephesus, Andrew & the rest through out all Asia, Gentium Ecclesiam sacrârunt, conse­crated the Church of the Nations (sayes Dr. H.) Genti­les (says S. W.) Vpon this testimony Dr. H. argues thus. What Nations were these? Sure of Iews aswell as Gentiles: then follow the Grounds of this his assurance; else Hieru­salem could be no part of them, no nor Iohn's converts at Ephesus, for they were Iews, and then he concludes his mild-reasoning discourse with as mild a reprehension, that therefore the Catholike Gentleman did not doe well. Now, as for his Sure, 'tis indeed a pregnant expression; but I deny the sufficiency of the Authoritie which so Magisterially pronounces it; And, for what concerns the Grounds of his assurance, they are both of them found onely in his own sayings, & no where in any testimony; my tenet, he knows, is, that all those Apostles preach't promiscuous­ly to Gentiles also where soever they came. But, lest he should think me hard hearted for not beleeving his Sure, I shall at least show my self far from cruelty in making him this friendly proffer, that if he can show mee any one word in any testimony yet produc't, which expresses that S. Iames preach't to Iews onely in Hierusalem, or S. Iohn to Iews onely in Ephesus, upon which alone he builds he­re that Gentium cannot signifie Gentiles, I will pardon him the answering this whole book; which to doe on any fashion will I know be very laborious & shamefull to him; but to doe it satisfactorily impossible, unles he could put out his Reader's Eyes, & so hinder them from rea­ding his corrupted & falsified citations aright. Is there anything easier then to show us an exclusive particle or expression if any such thing were to be found there: But, if there be none, what an emptines, vanity & open co­zenage [Page 332] of his Reader is it to cry Sure, Surely, Certainly, Vnquestionably, and the like, when there is no other war­rant to ground this assurance, save his owne weake fan­cy, inconsequent deductions, h [...]s interlac'd parenthesis­ses, his facing the testimonies with antecedent, peecing them with subsequent words; whiles, in the meane time, the testimony it self must stand by & look on onely like a conditio sine quâ non, as if it were an honourable specta­tor to grace his personating; and not have any efficacious influence, or act any part in the Argument which bears it's title.

But to come to the testimony it self: first, I would know of Mr. H. how oft he hath read Gentes taken alo­ne without any additionall & determining expression to signifie both Iews & Gentiles; unles it be in this sence as it probably might be in S Prosper's time, that Gentium Ec­clesia signified the Christian Church, in which the Iews were included, yet being no considerable part of it, they needed not be exprest. Next, as for the word Nations which he recurs to, I would ask whether (though those in Iudea were styled the Nation of the Iews) yet, whether those in dispersion at Rome were called a Nation or no, or rather a Sect Thirdly, let Gentium signifie, of the Na­tions, as he would have it, let us see how Dr. H. hath ad­vantaged his cause: For, if it be so, then the words Gen­tium Ecclesiam sacrarunt, they consecrated the Church of the Nations, are to be applyed to all the Apostles there mention'd: Now then, since Nations (as Dr. H. tells us here) is Sure of Iews aswel as Gentiles, the testimony must run thus, Iames at Hierusalem consecrated the Church of Iews aswell as Gentiles, Iohn at Ephesus consecrated the Church of Iews aswell as Gentiles, Andrew & the rest throug­hout all Asia consecrated the Church of the Iews aswell as Gentiles; and the like of Peter & Paul at Rome. Thus Dr. H. thinking to stop one hole hath made other three [Page 333] quite destroyes the substance of his exclusive tenet, while he went about to mend a circumstance. Fourthly if he will not allow this signification of the word given & allo­wed by himself (as'applyed to S Peter & S. Paul when it was his interest) to be appliable to all the rest of those Apostles likewise, let us see what an unreasonable beleef he exacts of his Readers; to imagine that the word Gen­tium should dance from one signification to another as his fancy shall please to strike up a diverse tune. Hence ap­ply'd to S. Iames & S Iohn, it must be imagin'd to signi­fy Iews onely, because 'tis against the interest of his tenet that they should open their mouths to convert a Genti­le at Hierusalem and Ephesus: But then S. Andrew & the rest are not Apostles of the Circumcision, & so according to him must not preach to a Iew in Asia, presently upon this the Ianus fac'd word Gentium turns the other side of it's visage towards us, & represents to us Gentiles onely; yet, all this could not content Dr. H. he had a minde to limit S. Peter's Authority when he met S. Paul in the sa­me City, which he could finde no handsomerway to doe then by making one over the Iews onely, the other over onely the Gentiles: No sooner had Dr. H fancied this, but immediately the obedient word Gentium turn'd round, & shew'd us both it's faces; and did not now si­gnify Iews onely, nor yet Gentiles onely, as fomerly but Iews & Gentiles both; And yet, when this is done, it expresses nothing to the contrary, but that each preach't to both. Is not this a rare disputant? Lastly, I would glad­ly know where he ever heard or how he came to imagin that the word Gentes could signifie Iews onely, as it must according to his Grounds, as apply'd to S. Iames at Hie­rusalem, and S. Iohn at Ephesus? Reader perhaps it may cause mirth in thee to read such Gottam-absurdities in a Dr. of Divinitie, but I assure thee it is most wearisome to me to stand laying open such weake impertinencies, nor [Page 334] doe I hope for any honourable triumph from the confu­ting such trash.

Sect. 18.
Dr. H's Irrefragable, Evidence from the Pope's Seals dis­clamed by himself, and, expressely deny'd to bee a proof. His manner of arguing by asking questions.

But as the lesser lights vanish at the rising of the Sun so we cannot but imagin that all the former dim te­stimonies of Dr. H's, which gave such a twinkling uncer­tain light, disappear at the sight of his Evidence of Evi­dences, or his Irrefregable Evidence, as he calls it, from the Seals of the Pope's, and what say the Seals of the Po­pe, or Mathew Paris in their behalf? that S. Paul stands on the right hand the Crosse, & S. Peter on the left; and this is produced by Dr. H. as an irrefragable Evidence that S. Peter was over the Iews at Rome S. Paul over the Gen­tiles, of Schism p. 77. l. 25. 26.

But first Dr. H. disclames Answ. p. 49 any such pre­tence from those pregnantly testifying Seals, but onely that they were brought for a testimony of the Church of Rome's being founded by S. Paul, aswell as S. Peter. If so I have wrong'd Mr. H. and shall ask him pardon: If not, I shall ask no further satisfaction of him save onely to lea­ve him to the Reader's iudgments when I shall have once conuinc't him by their eyes. In his booke of Schism p. 76. the 9th paragraph begins thus. The same is as evident at Rome, where these two great Apostles met again, and each of them erected & managed a Church one of Iews ano­ther of Gentiles. After which position immediately follow the testimonies which should have proved it, begining thus; So saith S. Irenaeus, & more expresly Epiphanius, So the Inscription on their Tombes, So Gaius, So Dionysius, [Page 335] So Prosper; Then, after the said testimonies, immedia­tely likewise follow these very words, And the very Seals of Popes are an Irrefragable Evidence of the same. Now, what this same was, is manifest by the beginning of the 9th parag. to wit that S. Peter was over the Iews S. Paul over the Gentiles at Rome. But 'tis an ordinary evasion with him to deny his owne words.

Nor is this all which these Seals of the Popes were to Evidence Irrefragably; Let us trace the originall position for which it was produced, & we shall finde it, ( of Schism p. 74.) to be this long rable; that whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same City, the one constantly ap­ply'd himself to the Jews, received Disciples of such, formed them into a Church, left them when he departed that region to be governed by some Bishop of his assignation, and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles; This is his chimericall position, which he pretended to manifest to have been at Antioch in his 8th parag immediately fol­lowing these words, and beginning with, [ Thus we know it was at Antioch;] and to have been at Rome in his 9th beginning thus, The same is as evident at Rome, (to wit that whensoever those two great Apostles came to that City to wit Rome, &c.) after this follows his proofs for the same tenet, So saith Epiphanius, Gaius, Dionysius, &c.] and, lastly, immediately after these follows this Eviden­ce of Evidences in these words; And the very Seals of the Popes are an irrefragable Evidence of the same.] Now what this relative [ Same] looks back upon is most irrefraga­bly evident to any one that can read English & under­stand common sence, to wit, that whensoever those two great Apostles came to one City, &c. and the rest of that large position before cited, it being most palpable that he went forwards to prove that, nor ever mentioned any other new thesis till long after his irrefragable evidenc [...] was over past; so that the bare pictures of S. Peter & S. Paul [Page 336] upon the Seals of the Popes are still an Irrefragable Evi­dence, that, whensoever those great Apostles came to the sa­me City, the one constantly apply'd himself to the Iews, re­ceived Disciples of such, formed them into a Church, left them when he departed that region to be governed by some Bishop of his assignation, and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles. So rare a thing it is to have a strong faith against the Pope.

Nor hath he onely prevaricated from his Irrefragable Evidence by denying the manifest scope of it exprest in his own words, and by mincing it to be an Instance not a proof though before he called it an Irrefragable Evidence; but to cover the shame of it he quite annih [...]lates the force of it's other fellow-testimony Evidences, Answ. p. 49 l. 31. 32. by denying them to be proofs also, but to be spoken in agreement onely with his proof out of Scripture Gal. 2. that Peter was by agreement to betake himself to the Iews. Whereas first that place of Scripture had been produ­ced pag. 73. but this pregnant Seal-testimony, & most of it's fel [...] ows p. 77 nor is there the least shadow of rela­tion of these places to that, as who so reads the 9th & 10th parag▪ where they are found will manifestly see. Se­condly Repl. p. 64. par. 6. he told us that Epiphanius his words cleered the busines-concerning Rome, that the other testimonies were Evidences to that purparse; and conclu­ded that Sure there can need no farther proofs, nor testimo­nies from Antiquitie in this matter Nay, he stuck so stron­gly to the testimony of Epiphanius, Answ. p. 48. that he maintain'd it impossible for S. W. to divert the force of it. So that the, same six testimonies & Popes Seals were there called Evidences, clear & sole-sufficient proofs, which are here deny'd to be proofs at all, but onely things spoken in agreement. But the reason of this double dealing is evi­dent; for, there, he was challenged not to have one testi­mony from Antiquity of those Apostles exclusive Iuris­dictions, [Page 337] and so had then no better shift save onely to ma­ke another dumbe show of the self-same testimonies, & then crie them up for clear Evidences & sole-sufficient proofs from Antiquitie. Here the weaknes of his pretended best, I mean his Irrefragable Evidence, was shown to be most silly & weak; where upon himself modestly decries both that & it's fellow Evidences of an inferior rank, & sayes that they are no proofs at all, but things spoken in agreement. Nor let him say that in his Reply where he called them such clear evidences & proofs, he mean't they were onely sufficient proofs that those Apostles both founded the Church at Rome; This was never in question between us, but granted by both sides; Neither did Schism Di­sarm'd ever challenge him to prove this; but that they founded that Church with exclusive Iurisdiction over Iews & Gentiles. Now then, since in his Answer to that exce­pt on, p. 48. l. 34. 35. he refers to the said place in his Re­ply, he must mean there that they are sole-sufficient proofs & clear Evidences to prove exclusive Iurisdiction of the one over Iews at Rome, the other over Gentiles, unles he will confesse himself an open & manifest prevaricatour from the whole Question. Thirdly, since he puts down his own thesis in these words, that each of them at Rome erected and managed a Church, S. Peter of Iews S. Paul of Gentiles, and then immediately subjoyned his proofs in this form, So saith Irenaeus, &c. it is impossible to imagin other, but that these testimonies were produced to prove the immediate foregoing thesis. Fourthly, by denying these to be proofs, that S. Peter was at Rome over Iews, S. Paul over Gentiles, he denies by consequence that he hath produced any proof at all for that fancie of his, ex­cept his owne blush-proof confident expression [ The same as evident at Rome] since in the 9th parag. the proper place to prove that point, there is nothing at all sound, but those testimonies denied by him here to be [Page 338] proofs, and his own now recited words: Though, I must confesse, towards the latter end of the 10th parag. he hath a very expresse proof in these words, [ of S. Peter's being over the Iews at Rome we make no Question] he must mean over Iews onely, for otherwise it opposes not us who hold him our selves to have been over both Iews & Gentiles there; So that he carries the whole question between us by saying '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 sayes that these testimonies are spoken onely in agreement with some other thing, and they had no ima­ginable relation to a farre-of-afore-going place of Scri­pture, as appears by my first note, & are most necessari­ly & manifestly related to prove the exclusive thesis it self, as is evident by my second, let us examin a litle nearer Dr. H's reach of reason, and strength of Logick. What mean these words that they are not produced for proofs but in agreement. I ask, have they any influence or efficacitie at all upon the conclusion or thing they are brought for, or no? if they have, they are proofs; if not, they are in­different. If any thing follow out of them they infer or prove it; if nothing, what do they there Either they are for the point & then they ground a deduction to establish it and are argumēts & proofs in it's behalf; or else they are against it, & are still proofs, though for the contrary; or, lastly, they are in themselves indifferent, that is neither for it nor against it, and then the first chapter of Genesis would have served his turn aswell as these neutrall testi­monies; yet Dr. H. takes it ill here that I should offer to make any incoherence appear in his discours who never in his life knew what it was to make any notions cohere at all, save onely in a loose Sermonary way, which the least puffe of declamatory aire would counterbuffe and dissi­pate to nothing.

[Page 339] But the Hydra head of this Irrefragable Evidence starts up with a numerous recruit, in the form of questions ( Ans­wer p. 49. l. vlt.) Is not the Pope's Seal (saith Dr. H.) an Evidence that Paul aswell as Peter had the planting the Church of Rome. I answer, grant it; what follows hence? this could have been done by their promiscuous endea­vours. And is not that agreable to Peter's preaching the Iews and Paul's to the Gentiles when they met in a City where we­re multitudes of both? I answer you must mean to Iews one­ly, for 'tis our tenet that each preach't to both; and then you have been often challēged that you have not brought one syllable of proof for it but your owne word onely. Nor is their founding the Church agreable even to your owne words in any other sence then as agreable signifies indifferent, or not contrary to it, since the founding a Church, signifies onely the thing done in common, not the particular manner of doing it, either promiscuously or exclusively which is all our question but is equally ap­pliable to both: or rather indeed, sounding onely a com­mon endeavour in doing it, 'tis rather inclinable to a pro­miscuous sence; nay, the force of the word, the Church, which is to be understood of God's Church at Rome, ev­dently gives us to understand that there was but one Church, not two, for otherwise he was bound to say the Churches not the Church. It follows immediately after his former question. And was not that the importance of the agreement Gal. 2. 9. I answer there was no agreement there to any such purpose. The giving the right hand of fellowship was to acknowledge S. Paul a fellow-Apostle and his doctrine sincere; the applying themselves some to Iews others to Gentiles was a pure sequell: [...], the Circumcision, to which S. Peter lent at that time his speciall endeavours, signified the countrey of Iudea, not the Iews in dispersion, all which hath been manifested most particularly heretofore, Sect. 6. much lesse is it impor­ted [Page 340] there, as Dr. H. after his openly-falsifying manner pretends here, that when they met in a City where were multitudes of both they should carry themselves thus & thus; there being no talk there of either Cities or multi­tudes which he tells us here the agreement there imported, and then cites immediately for it Gal. 2. 9. without the words. But he proceeds. And is not that an Argument that Peter was not the universall Pastor, but that the Genti­les were S. Paul's Province, as the Iews S. Peter's. Not a jott good Dr. your premisses are no stronger then your bare saying, which makes your inference thence wea­ker then water. Your conciet of Provinces the ground­work of all your pitifull dicourse was shown to be a groūd­les fiction. Nor, were there such, would it make for your purpose unles they were exclusive; nor would it serve your intent that there was exclusivenes in the actuall endeavours of the Apostles, but you must evince an Exclusivenes in Right ere you can pretend to limit a Right: nor have you brought as yet one expresse word of any testimony to ma­ke good the least of these. Again, if by universall Pastour you mean one who hath Iurisdiction to preach in all pla­ces of the world and to all sorts of people, as your wise Ar­gument seems to intend, you need not trouble your self, we grant each Apostle to have been an universall Pastour in this sence; but, if you mean that S. Peter was not hig­her in Authoritie amongst the Apostles, how does this fol­low though he were supposed to be limited as a particular Bishop to his private Province; or, as a Bishop, had a flock distinc't from S. Paul's, is not even now a dayes, the Po­pe's Bishoprick limitted to the Roman Diocese his Pa­triarchate to the West, and so his Authority under both these notions limited exclusively and contradistinguisht from other Bishops and Patriarchs, and yet wee see de facto, that he is held chief Bishop in the Church & hig­her in Authoritie then the rest notwithstanding. Doe not [Page 341] our eyes and the experience of the whole world testifie this to be so? yet were all the former absurd inventions of Apostolicall Provinces, their exclusivenes, S. Peter over the Iews onely, &c. granted; still his utmost inference would be no stronger then this now related which the eyes of all the world gainsay; to wit, that because others had their particular assignations, Provinces, or Bishopriks distinct from S. Peter's, therefore S. Peter could not be higher in Authoritie then those others; by which one may see that my learned Adversary understands not what is mean't by the Authority he impugns; but makes ac­count the Pope cannot be Head of the Church, unles he be the particular & immediate Bishop of every Diocese in it. Whereas, we hold him contradistinct from his fel­low Bishops, for what concerns his proper & peculiar as­signation; and onely say that he is higher then the rest in Iurisdiction & power of command in things belonging to the universall good of the Church. This point then should have been struck at & disputed against, not that other never held by us, that none in the Church hath his par­ticular Bishoprick or assignation save the Pope onely, against which onely Dr. H. makes head while he makes it the utmost aym of his weak endeavours to prove S. Peter a distinct Bishop from S. Paul, & to have had a di­stinct flock.

Sect. 19.
Dr. Hammond's method in answering his Disarmer's chal­lenge, that hee could not show one expresse word limiting the Apostles Iurisdictions in any of those many Testimo­nies produced by him for that End; and how he puts three Testimonies together to spell that one word. His palpahle falsification and other pittifull weaknesses,

AFter Dr. H's Irrefragable Evidence follow'd imme­diately ( of Schism p. 74.) And all this very agreable [Page 342] to the story of Scripture, which (according to the brevitie of the relations there made) onely sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the Circumcision; and of his being so at Rome we make no question Vpon these words, his Disarmer ( Schism Disarm. p 73.) enumerated as many significations im­ported by that word onely, as were obvious, & confuted them severally, because he found the words ambiguous; telling him that neither doth Scripture onely set down S. Pe­ter as Apostle of the Circumcision but Iames & Iohn also Gal. 2. 9. nor is S. Peter any where exprest as Apostle of one­ly the Circumcision but expresly particularized the contrary Act. 15. & 7. His Answer. p. 50. affords us a third signi­fication, so impossible for S. W. to imagin, as it was to foresee all the weakneses Dr. H's cause could put him upon. 'Tis this, that the words (onely) is set clearly in op­position to the Scripture's, making more particular relations of S. Peter's preaching to the Iewish caetus at Rome, &c. Now, had the Scripture produced by him made any par­ticular relation at all of any such matter, then indeed his [ onely] might have been thought to mean the want of mo­re particular relation, &c. but if in no place alledged by him there had been found the least particular relation at all either of a Iewish caetus at Rome, or S. Peter's preaching to it particularly, or indeed so much as intimating his prea­ching in that City, then what ground had Dr. H. given me to imagine that the restrictive particle onely was put in opposition to a more particular relation from Scripture of that, of which the Scripture had given me no relation at all? Is there a greater misery then to stand trifling with such a brabbler? To omit, that, take away the former parenthe­sis from having any influence upon the words without it, as it ought, & then one of the significations given by me is absolutely unavoidable.

But against the first signification impugned by me, he challenges my knowledge that he could not mean so without [Page 343] contradicting himself; and my knowledg challenges his conscience that he cannot be ignorant how he contra­dicts himself frequently & purposely upon any occasion when he cannot well evade. As for the second sence I con­ceived that ambiguous word might bear, I repeated my challenge to him Schism Disarm. p. 73. that, If he could shew me the least syllable either in Scripture or other testimo­nies expresly and without the help of his, Id ests, and scruing deductions restraining S. Peter's Jurisdiction to the Iews one­ly & excluding it from the Gentiles, I would yeild him the Laurell and quit the Controversie. This challenge though offered him before p. 52. 53. & p. 68. yet he here first ac­cepts, not for the Laurell's sake, he remitts that to S. W. but upon so tempting an hope as to be at an end of Contro­versie, which I dare say he repents he ever medled with; yet was hee very hasty to begin with Controversies vo­luntarily & unprovoked; and now when he sees himself answer'd & unable to reply, the moderate man growes weary & wishes himself at an end of them, as if he thought himself, when hee begun first, so great a Goliah that the­re could not be found in the whole Army of the Church a sling and a stone to hit him in the fore head.

Ere I come to lay open how he acquits himself of this accepted challenge, I desire the Reader to consider, first, the import of it; which is to exact onely of him to show one exclusive word exprest in order to S. Peter's Iu­risdiction in any one of those many testimonies he produ­ced for that end. Secondly, let him candidly observe what infinite disadvantage I offer my self, & what an incom­parable advantage I offer my adversary in such an unpa­ralleld proffer and condescension; one restrictive word for the restrictive point now in question between us, ma­kes him and undoes mee. Thirdly, let him remember how Dr. H. call'd those proofs Evidences for that restrictive point, the whole Controversie being about the limitation [Page 344] or illimitation of Iurisdiction; and the totall scope of that first half of c. 4. to limit S. Peter's to the Iews onely. Fourthly, hence follows that it is mainly important & most absolutely necessary that Dr. H. should now lay hold of this fair occasion to lay the Axe to the root of Rome, as he exprest his intent Answ. p. 11. Fifthly, the conditions of the victory are the most facil that can be imagin'd; for, what easier than to shew one exclusive particle, as onely, solely, alone, or some such like, exprest in any testimony if any such thing were there. Sixthly, it is to be observed that he hath accepted of the challenge, & so stands en­gaged to shew some such word exprest in some testimony. Seventhly he is allured to do it by the tempting hope to be at an end of Controversie, as himself confesses. And lastly, unles he come of well from so condescending, & so easy a challenge already accepted of, that is, unles he show some such exclusive particle exprest in some testimony he cannot avoid manifesting himself the most shamefull wri­ter that ever handled pen, the most pernicious ruiner of Souls that ever treated controversy, the most insincere­conscienc'd man that ever pretended to the name of a Christian, if in treating a question about Schism in which is interessed mens eternall salvation & damnation, as him­self proves amply of Schism c. 1. and the most fundamen­tall point thereof, as himself likewise confesses this to be, which concerns S. Peter's universall Iurisdiction ( Answ. p. 74) hee cannot produce nor pick out one expresse word to that purpose from that whole army of his testi­monies which he call'd Evidences, but from his own words onely; So that all the motives imaginable conspire to ma­ [...]e Dr. H. as good as his word, the hazard of his Rea­der's eternall damnation; the care of his owne conscien­ce, & of his owne credit; the hope to be at an end of Controversie, (none of the least to him as he is caught in these present circumstances) promise of victory, the [Page 345] extreme moderation & facility of the understanding, and lastly his owne acceptation here of the challenge.

By this time I know the Reader expects that Dr. should come thundering out with a whole volly of testimonies, shewing in each of them plain words expressing his tenet, at least that he should produce some one expresse particle, limitting S. Peter's Authoritie without the help of his scruing deductions, as he promist his challenger; But, he, never so much as attempts what he late pretended; th [...]t is, he attempts not to show any expresse word in any testimo­ny, but instead there of prevaricates to his old shuffling tricks, huddles together three testimonies, and fancies a shadow like allusion from one to the other, and thence adventures to infer a conclusion. What is this to our que­stion or my challenge, it debarr'd his scruing deductions, and required some one expresse restrictive word; he linkes three citations together to make a sleight glosse, which no one alone could do, and then deduces & concludes, which was interdicted by his self-accepted challēge. What need three testimonies, strung together, to shew one re­strictive word? or, what relation hath the pointing out to us such a word to the inferring a conclusion from three te­stimonies? I desired & he promist me some one word which was express, that is, which needed no conclusion at all; he puts me of with a conclusion onely which intimates there was never an express word. His deductions are his, the words are the testimonies; I never challeng'd him that he could not deduce the most ivicy conclusion, from the most flin­ty testimony, as he did the best in all his book of Schism from the bare monosyllable come; My challenge was that his deductions were loud, his testimonies quite dumbe, without one expresse word in them to his purpose. This word which would have sav'd & gain'd Dr. H. so much cre­dit & Ease I desired should be shown me; But since he is silent in pronouncing it, he gives it for granted that he [Page 346] could produce none; and so the Reader & I know what to think of him, whose self-conciet dares hazard his Rea­der's Salvation upon his owne bare unauthorized sayings, and altogether unwarrantable imaginations.

Now, as for his three testimonies themselves, they are the former old ones already answered over & over; towit, that from Gal. 2. of the imagin'd agreement for exclusi­ve Provinces, that of Epiphanius saying that the two A­postles were Bishops in Rome, and that of the Arch he­retick Pelagius, concerning the holding a part the Iewish & Gentile Churches. The first he can make nothing of without an Ellipsis, which he makes up himself. Our bar­gain was that he should show me some exclusive word, exprest in any one of his citations for his exclusive tenet, and the first of the three lōg letterd testimonies which by being put together were to spell this one exclusive word, is imperfect without something understood, that is, not­exprest. Good! The whole force of the second from Epi­phanius lies in this word Bishops, which yet affirms S. Peter & S. Paul to have been at Rome; which word is so far from being of an exclusive signification, that it is common & inclusive of both. Yet▪ he tells us here that it is expresse; & makes it more ample by reciting it thus, that in Rome Peter & Paul were the same persons, both Apostles & Bis­hops. What force he puts in the [ same persons] none but himself can imagin, since none ever dream't that Epipha­nius spoke of two different Peters & Pauls whom he call'd Bishops, from those he call'd in the same line & with in the same comma, Apostles▪ And, as for his last testimony 'tis borrowed, frō the Arch-heretick Pelagius as hath been shown heretofore, Sect. 7. Moreover grant that the Con­gregations of Iews & Gentiles were for a while during the heat of the Scandall held a part at Antioch, and some other places, yet this Arch-heretick's testimony expresses not it was so at Rome when the Apostles met there, which was [Page 347] some years after that fit of Iewish zeal at Antioch; and the vehemency of the Scandall, by the Apostles prudence, went on mitigating every day; So as this unauthentick testimony borrow'd from the wicked Pelagius, hath not one expresse word of exclusion even of the Iewish caetus at Rome, much lesse of the Apostles were exclusively over those two caetusses (as he terms them) nor hath Dr. H. any reason to think that all the Iews of the dispersion we­re thus zealous, since we may gather easily (Act. 13. 42.) that both Iews & Gentiles were together when S. Paul preached at the Synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia, and most expressely Act. 14. v. 1. 19. we read that in Iconium, Paul & Barnabas went both together into the Synagogue of the Iews & so spake that a great multitude both of the Iews & al­so of the Gentiles beleeved Which, besides that it shows plainly the Iews there thought it not against Moses his law to avoid the conversation of a Gentile, so it manifests likewise that they were in a disposition rather to admit converted Gentiles than unconverted (which yet we see here they did) since the unconverted deny'd nay laught at Moses his law and Christ to boot, which the converted did not; which shows that though he may have some la­me pretence that the Iews at Antioch were too nice, yet he hath none at all, no not so much as a word, that this fastidious zeal was epidemicall, or that it was so at Rome; Nor does this testimony from Pelagius expresse this at all either in circumstances of time or place; and this expres­se place of Scripture with it's fellows are main prejudices against it. Yet Dr. H. vaunts his undaunted valour, that from these three testimonies he shall adventure to infer the conclusion that S. Peter's Iurisdiction was restrained to the Iews onely & exclusively to the Gentiles. And, I question not but Dr. H. is a very bold adventurer, & is not a fraid to infer the most absurd & remote posi­tions that ever were dream't of, out of the most uncon­cerning [Page 348] & dumb testimonies all over his hook.

But, it seems that even this Conclusion of his which he deduces out of testimonies instead of shewing me one ex­presse word in them, is not of it self evidently consequent neither, but needs still further proofs & reasons to sup­port it, which he puts thus ( Answ. p. 51.) For how could there be two Bishops in one City, (a thing quite contrary to all Rule & practice as soon as the division betwixt Iews & Gentiles was taken away) unles there were two such distinct caetus. I answer, he neither hath nor can show that the Sit­ting of two in one City then sprung from such a division of the Iewish & Gentile caetus: And, if by practice, he means common practice, 'tis granted; but if he means it was never practised upon occasion, as his words [ contra­ry to all practice] intimate, then I suppose one instance will suffice to destroy his universall position to wit that three paires of Bishops Meletius and Paulinus, Pauli­nus and Flauianus, Flauianus and Euagrius, sate successi­vely two together Bishops of Antioch. Now what occa­sion there was for this in the Apostles dayes shall quickly be shown. It follows, in proof of the one expresse-wor­ded-Conclusion, If there were two such caetus, then they that were of one caetus under one Bishops, were not of the other cae­tus under the other Bishop. I answer, '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 onely prop of his cause as to this point; for hee can never make his unconnected ends of testimonies meet but by the mediation of this. Secondly, because no Bishop was to medle in another man's Province. Which, till the Testimony from Pela­gius bee made authentick, touches not us; for till then it is not prou'd these two Apostles had such distinct Pro­vinces. [Page 349] Hee proceeds: And if it be pretended that it is true in coordinate Episcopaties, but holds not betwixt a Bishop & his Primate (this is the first time he hath yet seem'd even to come near the question) then the former arguments re­turn again, that shew'd from Scriptures & Antiquitie that S. Paul was independent from S. Peter, and that S. Paul had the Primatū Prmacy among the Gentiles as Peter among the Iews. I reply, that my answer are full as nimble as his arguments, & return as fast as they; telling the first of them that he haht not produc'd a word either from Scri­pture or Antiquitie showing that the power given to S. Paul was not dependent on S. Peter, which was the thing in question though indeed in what concerns not the que­stion, towit, that the actuall giving the power depended not on S. Peter, but was done immediately by Christ, the Scri­pture, is expresse & plain. As for his second argument '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 margent. Say that Peter, Primatum accepe­rat ad fundandam Ecclesiam, had received the Primacy to found the Church; which word Church, he makes here to be the Iews onely as contradinguish't from Gentiles, though by the force of the very phrase it signify the who­le Church of Christ made up of both Iews & Gentiles, & so is expresly contrary to him, & definitive for our tenet as is shown heretofore, Sect. 7. His last Stop-dāger is, that, though it may be that S. Peter did conuert some other such as Cornelius (that is, other Iews) yet this is not argumenta­tive for S. W. being nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction, and withall but a whimpering (may be) in his language. Whe­re first he is resolved to pursve his so oft affected mistakes that I am to argue & prove, who (he knows well) under­took to Answer him, & show that his arguments & te­stimonies prove nothing. Nor did I tell him that a May­be may not serve, or is not proper for an Answer: my [Page 350] words are plain Schism Disarm. p. 20. that he ought not bring May bees for proofs. For how can a proof conclude evi­dently unles the inference be necessary? or how can the inference be necessary, unles the Conclusion must be so! and, who sees not that a May-be otherwise doth, out of the force of the terms, destroy a must be so. Wherefore, as, if I were to argue for the ground of my faith, I should hold my self obliged to leave no room for a possibility to the contrary, so I am sure I cannot wrong mine Adver­sary in expecting the same measure from him: If then Dr. H. whose turn it is to dispute here (since he produ­ces testimonies & proofs, which he calls Evidences) will conclude any thing necessarily, his testimonies ought to infer that the matter, pretended to be proved thence must be, that is, the contrary may not be; and then, though it be not augmētative for S. W. whose task it is not to argue; yet it is sufficiently responsive for him to show that the contrary may be. And this is all can be exacted of me or any other defendant in rigour of Logicall disputation. If I have done more in most places than I was obliged, and shown that the contrary not onely may be, but is, & very many times that it must be; and so have wrong'd perhaps my self in taking more pains with such a trifler then needs; I hope I have not been iniurious to my cause by showing my self a too zealous though perhaps in some circumstan­ces an unseasonable Patron of it in over acting the part of a Respondent or Answerer.

Now that conversion, (as Dr. H. sayes) is nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction (though it concerns not me at present to define one way or other, yet) as coming from Dr. H. it is the most unbeseeming & self-contradicting position, cōfuting at once almost all his third Chapter, the most substantiall part of his book; which Chapter though concerning Iurisdiction (as indeed the whole question is) yet run's almost upon nothing else but preaching & con­version, [Page 351] which he tells us here is nothing to that matter. See of Schism p. 71. the foundation of all his tenet imaginary Provinces defin'd to be such an Apostles proper place or as­signation for the wittnessing the Resurrection and proclaiming the faith or doctrine of Christ to the world, that is preaching or converting, Sect p 74. Thus we know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted Iews, S. Paul Gentiles. You have been the Disciples of Peter & Paul. See p. 76. they founded the Church at Rome; which was done by preaching, at least it expresses not Iurisdiction. See p. 78. S. Peter was Apostle of the circumcision: S. Paul preach't at Rome in his owne hired house. p. 84. that S. Peters baptizing many in­to the faith of Christ, &c. in Britany must be extended no farther then his line as he is Apostles of the Iews. So that, there he argued from preaching or Conv [...]rsion, to Iurisdi­ction, which he saies here is nothing to it; And the words he there intermingled, expressing more particularly Iuris­diction, as ruling, &c are his own not his Author's, except when he speaks of a particular Bishop in his proper See, as of S. Iohn at Ephesus, which hinders not but the parti­cular Bishop of another see may be higher then he; as wee see now a dayes that more particular Bishops are sub­ject to their Metropolitain; and so such a Iurisdiction is nothing to our question, unles he first evidence it's equa­lity with the pretended highest.

Sect. 20.
How the Apostles in likelihood of [...]ason behaved themsel­ves when two of them met in the same city. Dr. H's agrea­ble Testimony (as hee calls it) shown neither to agree with Scripture, the Authour hee cites to prove it, nor yet with his own grounds.

THus much in answer to my wordish Adversary; now for the point it self of those Apostles being both [Page 352] Bishops in one City, to clear that more throughly, let us consider what was likely to happen out of of the natu­re of the thing it self joyn'd with the prudence of the Apo­stles. The Spirit confirmed twelve were sent to preach to all Nations; when, & where, was left to God's prouident disposing of circumstances apply'd to their prudence. For, the task being difficult, & they not knowing by prophe­ticall fore-sight what place & time would for the future be alwayes most convenient (as appears by S. Paul nee­ding a vision of a man of Macedonia to direct him thi­ter and other times of a speciall direction of the Holy Ghost) they were to govern themselves by that high pru­dence which amongst other gifts rain'd down upon them in Pentecost. Most linger'd in Iudea till occasionall circum­stances together with the inspiration of the holy Ghost, disperst them; some went one way, some another. Amongst the rest (to particularize in two, & come nearer our point) S. Peter & S. Paul, the two most efficacious Apostles, were after some years by an especiall providēce directed to Ro­me, that Christian faith might gain a more advantageous propagation by the influence that Head City had over the subject world. Coming thither, &, each being suffi­ciently able to preach a part from the other, it was very unfitting they should preach both together, but, that they should accommodate themselves in such a conve­nient distance that the whole City might be best sum­moned to Christ's Faith by the noise of these two Aposto­licall Trumpets. This done, they fall to preach; the he­venly newnes of their doctrine, the prodigiousnes of their miracles make multitudes flock to them from all parts. In the City were Gentiles & Iews both. Nor have we any ground to imagin that God's providence was so miracu­lously particular, as to direct onely Iews to S. Peter, & onely Gentiles to S. Paul. Equally promiscuously then they both came to each, according as chance, rumour, [Page 353] acquaintance, or other circumstances guided them. The Apostles did not enviously deny the knowledge of C [...]r [...]sts law to any that came, but preach't it impartially to all; equally promiscuously then they preach't each of them both to Iews & Gētiles. For it had been the hihgest impru­dence to hazard the losse of yet weake & slenderly-mou'd Souls by seeming to neglect them, and sending them away to another; & to order their actions ere they had ownd their wills. The converts baptized by each could not but take a very particular ply & addictiō to their proper Apo­stle & father. Let us put case then that there should hap­pen a scandall of the Iewish converts vnder each against the Gentiles (which yet Dr. H. no where show'd to have been at this place, Rome; nor at this time in any o [...]her place,) about eating of Gentile diet; (for that there ever was any farther quarrell between them, or that they ab­stain'd from all Communion, is an absolute impossibility asserted onely by a plain falsification, as hath been shown.) Let us consider what effects such a scandall was likely to produce. Is it imaginable that all the multitude of the Gentiles under S. Peter should shift sides & run to S. Paul, and all the Iewi [...]h from S. Paul to S. Peter? or rather that the Apostles prudence order'd things so, that, when in any assembly where some practice emergent out of the favorable conciet the Iews had of Moses his law, was li­kely to come in play, or any thing to the contrary, they would order them to keep a sunder to avoid the scandall. We finde plainly by the place lately cited that in other circumstances the Iews met with perfect Gentiles in the same place both at Antioch in Pisidia & Iconium; or, had there been such hatred between them, as not to endure one another's sight or company (as Dr. H. wildly ima­gins) each might preach and celebrate to one after the other was departed, or else in severall places; any thing is more easy to be imagin'd than that all of each side should [Page 354] forsake their proper Apostle & more than father, to whom under God they ow'd all their hopes of Heaven, or that the Apostles at their first coming should post them from one to another, and not give them audience if they would ask, or leave to hear Christ's law if they would learn. But, to proceed; supposing on that each was converted by either, hence follow'd a particular addiction of their converts to their respective Pastors; and, from this ad­diction, a greater aptitude to be directed according to Christ's law, to be instructed corrected, & governed by one rather than by the other, and by consequence a grea­ter good to the Governed; whence it was necessary that those two Apostles, living in so great a City that it was fully capable of both their endeavours, should continue their distinctive way untill their deaths. Nor doth this op­pose us at all, since not onely reason grants it, but our own eyes & evident experience attest it, that either of them may be immediate Bishops over severall particular flocks, and yet with this it may be easily consistent that one of those may be superior in Authority to the other, as we see in a Bishop & an Arch-Bishop, an Arch-Bishop & a Primate. Hence appears that the being Bishops at Rome both at once, which proof the Dr. most relies upon, as that whose force it is not possible to divert, neither conclu­des the one was over Iews onely, the other over Genti­les, for which hee produced it; nor yet that one of them was not Superiour to the other. But to return to my Aduersary's Answer.

Another agreable testimony of Dr. H's which (as he told us candidly before) were not proofs, that is proved nothing, is, that the Scripture affirms of S. Paul that he preached at Rome in his owne hired house receiving them that came vnto him. Act. 28. 30. which will most fitly be ap­ply'd to the Gentiles of that City, the Iews having solemnly departed from him. v. 29. Thus he, of Schism p. 78.

[Page 355] I reply'd (though such a saples trifle required none) that there was no such word as solemnly in the testimony, upon which onely he grounds. He answers here p. 52. that he cited not the word solemnly from that verse as any part of the sacred Text. I ask, why then did he put the word solemnly which is not found there in the same letter with, departed, which is found there, and immediately cite, v. 29. It was his insincere common trick I glanced at, and '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 cytes the pla­ce for it, without intimating at all, that 'tis his owne de­duction onely from that place, but, by the whole carriage of it, gulling the unwary Reader that all is pure Scripture, to which he subjoyns his insincere citation, relating us to a place where the most important words are wanting.

Next, he goes about to prove the solemnity of their de­parture from other verses in the same Chapter. I ask; what is this to the pretence that their solemne departure was found v. 29. which hee cited for it? I deny'd not the solemnity of reprehension exp [...]est to the unbeleeving Iews in other verses, but onely, that there was any so­lemnity of departure exprest in that verse; for read the whole place, & we finde not a word of any resolution in them to come no more, much lesse of any resolution in S. Paul not to preach to them, wheresoever he found them in other places (which nevertheles was that which Dr. H. should have show'd) and indeed nothing but an ordination of God, that his law should be preach't to Gentiles. [First then, the words of solemn reprehension, [The heart of this people is waxen grosse, and their ears dull of hearing] are impossible to be apply'd to the Iews which believed, as is exprest v. 24. we have therefore no ground hence of any solemnity of departure in order to them.

[Page 356] Secondly S. Chrysostome whom he cites here for this point onely says as he puts him [...], when they agreed not they departed; that is, they not belie­ving forsook him, where 'tis plain he speaks expresly of the unbeleeving not of the beleeving, and yet plainer f [...]om what Dr. H. puts after wards [...], those words of Scripture he apply'd to them upon their unbelief. Now, since S. Chrysostome speaks of those to whom S. Paul apply'd the words of Scripture, & these are impossible to be apply'd to the Iews which v. 24. be­leeved, it is equally impossible his words should be ap­pliable to the beleeving Iews.

Thirdly, grant he had solemnly reprehended the inno­cent beleeving Iews also, was it not possible for them to return after such a dismission, nor for S. Paul to apply himself again to them? nay was it not possible this might have been don even to the unbeleevers themselves? I am sure the Texts says nothing to the contrary, for to this ‘purpose I instanced ( Schism Disarm. p. 74.) that Act. 13. 46. both Paul & Barnabas told the Iews boldly that they would turn to the Gentiles, & departed more solemn­ly, shaking of the dust of their feet, v. 51.’ and yet they afterwards preach't many times to the Iews, as is to be seen in the Acts. By which I onely could mean that this greater vehemency & solemnity of their departure hin­der'd them not yet from applying themselves to the Iews for the future: But my acute Adversary takes it as if I ex­pected the self-same shaking of the dust of their shoes, at Rome also; and, having given his reasons, concludes that therefore this ceremony was not now seasonable. A very sea­sonable and pertinent Answer.

Now, as for the beleeving Iews remaining with S. Paul he answers this with If's and expects I should produ­ce Evidence against them. Is not this a gallant disputant? when his argument is shown to be weak, he under props [Page 357] it with a lame If, and then tels his Aduersary he must sup­ply his turn and argue, because he (alas) is weary, hath already done his best, & can stretch no further. Yet he grants that those Iews which beleeved (if they continued) be­came a part of S. Paul's caetus, and allows it possible that some Gentiles might be in S. Peter's, instancing himself in Clemens. Now, then, I would ask, if this be so, how ma­ny Iews S. Paul might convert & govern, and how many S. Peter? some, he says here, is no prejudice to his tenet; I would know then what be the stints & limits of this number of heterogeneus converts, beyond which their Iurisdiction might not passe; or, why they should be so partiall as to admit some & send away others who came to them with the same desire to hear Christ's doctrine. Again, I would ask, what the Iewish converts vnder S. Paul should do in case they hap to take a toy against the Gentiles for eating a peece of Pork; Dr. H's grounds in this case interdicts them all Communion & conversation; According to his doctrine, S. Peter must have two alto­gether-uncōnected Churches under him, a greater one of Iews a lesser of Gentiles; and S. Paul, on the other side, a vast Church of Gentiles & a smaller kind of a Chappell of Iews. And thus Dr. H's former agreable discourse, nei­ther agrees with any thing els nor it self neither; since, the same difficultie occurs here as if each Apostle had preach't promiscuously & indifferently both to Iews & Gentiles; since each must be over two Congregations if the Iews hapt to be too zealous for Moses his law, aswell as in the other case of preaching to both, which he so much strove to evade; & [...]ould by no means admit.

Sect. 21.
How Dr. H. vindicates his Falsification of S. Ignatius by committing another. His formerly call'd Evidences de­ny'd now by himself to bee proofs for the point; but, meta­morphos'd into Branches of Accordances, seasonable Ad­vertissements and Fancies. The rare game in hunting a [...]er his proofs, with the issue of that sport.

SChism Disarm'd p. 76. accused Dr. H of subjoyning out of his own head words most important & expresly testifying the point in hand, to a dry testimony of S. Ignatius. He qualifies the fault, too great to be acknow­ledg'd with what truth shall be examin'd. The place it self onely related that Linus was Deacon to S. Paul Cle­mens to S. Peter. Dr. H. of Schism p. 78. puts it thus, Ac­cordingly in Ignatius Ep. ad Trall. we read of Linus & Cle­mens that one was S. Paul's the other S. Peter's Deacon, both which afterwards succeeded them in the Episcopall Chair Linus being constituted Bishop of the Gentile, Clemens of the Iewish Christians there. Where, note.

First, that there is nothing but a simple comma at the word [ Deacon] where the testimony ends; nor any a thing like a full point of a testimony till the words [ the Iewish Christians there.]

Secondly, there is no other distinctive note imagina­ble to let us know which are testimonies, which his own words.

Thirdly all the art insincerity could imagin was used here to make no distinction appear: as to tell us we read what follow'd there, & never telling us how far we read it; to iumble the two different letters confusedly toge­ther; and to put the words, Episcopall Chair, Bishop, Gentile, Iewish Christians, which were not found in the [Page 359] testimony, in the small translating letter, and the same with the word Deacon, which was found therein.

Fourthly, the word [ Deacons] found in the testimo­ny, is nothing at all to our controversy, for what is it to us that S. Peter had such a Deacon, and S Paul such another? whereas the other words subjoined by himself are mainly important to his point.

Lastly, this confident affirmation of his, that Linus was constituted Bishop of the Gentile, Clemens of the Iewish Christians there, is no where els either found, or so much as pretended to be shown, and so it could not be imagi­ned but that those words were part of this testimony. For who could ever think that any man should be so sha­melesly insincere as to put down such concerning expres­sions under the shadow of a testimony, and yet those expressions authorised by nothing but his owne word, nor found any where but in his self-inuented additions.

All these sleights discover plainly that there was artifi­ce and design in the busines; and that he slily abused his Reader, by putting a testimony, which signify'd nothing, for a cloake, and then adding what he pleas'd; hoping it might be countenanced by the grave Authority of Igna­tius, and, by such a dexterous management, bee taken for his, at least he hop't it might passe unsuspected by his confident asserting it; or, how ever, he hop't at least that for his last refuge he could evade by saying he mean't it not for a proof, but in agreement onely, or (as hee pretti­ly calls it here) a branch of accordance; and that's a defen­ce good enough for him, being as good as the nothing-proving proof was. The shadow of a buckler is the fittest to defend the shadow of a body.

He is troubled that I expected this testimony should say any thing to S Peter's being onely over the Iews. What could I expect other? our question is about the limita­tion of Iurisdiction, what serve his testimonies for, or [Page 360] what do they there unles they can prove that? But he say's that that conclusion was proved out of Scripture; which is a flat falsification, since he could neither show me one restrictive word in Scripture to that purpose, whereas his position even now put down & pretended to be proved thence is restrictive; nor durst he rely upon Scripture alo­ne, when he was to find us that so much desired one word, but was forced to peece it out with other two places from Epiphanius & Pelagius the Archeretick, To omit that the testimony it self Gal. 2. expresses nothing of any agree­ment for such an end, as ( Sect. 6.) hath been amply shown. He adds that this from Ignatius is onely a branch of accordance with that. In the name of wonder where shall we look for Dr. H's proofs? There is not one testimo­ny he hath produced out of Antiquitie as yet for this point, but he falls from it when he should maintain it, & say's 'tis no proof but onely spoken in agreement, or (as he­re i [...] a quainter & gentiler phrase) a branch of accordance, and a seasonable advertissement. Come along Reader let thee and I go hunt after Dr. H's proofs for this point from the first starting it; To trace it step by step, we begin with of Schism, c. 4 par. 4. where he say's that question of S. Peter's supremacy must be managed by Evidences, & so concluded either on the one side or the other; professing the­re that he began to offer his Evidence for the Negative. Let us not despair then of these Evidences & proofs so solemn­ly promis't us, but addresse our selves for their quest. The fifth par. begins thus; And first it is evident by Scri­pture S. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision or Iews exclusively to the Vncircumcision or Gentiles. Here we se the point to be evidenced, and from Scripture. Now in this par. (which hath such a fair promising beginning) there are two places of Scripture, the famous [...] and [...], both which he denies to be Evidences Answ. p. 38. But to proceed: The 6. par. begins with an [Page 361] If, proceeds with a parenthesis, agreable onely as hee the­re expresses it; and so, according to him, no proof. The rest are his own words onely till we come at S. Iames, and the proofs following till we come to the end of the par. are not in order to the main point, but onely to pro­ve that Iames at Hierusalem was consider'd as a Bishop (which was out of question between us) as himself de­clares his owne meaning Answ. p. 43. l. 27. The rest of that as also the next parag. proceeds with Accordingly, p. 74. l. 4. and again, Accordingly ibid. lin. 20. According p 75. lin. 22. which show that all these were not proofs, but things spoken in agreement, or branches of accordan­ce onely. Five testimonies follow par. 9. in order to those two Apostles planting the Church at Rome; which he expresly denies to be proofs of this our point Answ p. 49. l. 32. 33. and sayes they are spoken in agreement one­ly, as also the next three which are found in the begin­ning of the tenth, though one of them be here call'd an Irrefragable Evidence. But let us pursve our game. The­se testimonies over past, the next from Scripture are in­troduc't with Agreable, and so are meant to be in agree­ment onely and no proofs. The 11th par. begins with Ac­cordingly again, which leads in the late-ill-treated testimo­ny from Ignatius, deny'd here Answ. p. 53. to be a proof for the pretended point, and exprest to be onely a branch of accordance lin. 26. The rest of the 11th par. is his own Scho [...]ion onely, and pretends no proof. The two next pa­ragraphs are nothing but his owne words relating to the former onely accordant no proofs; and so being meerly co­rollary accordances or thin deductions from the other, can have no more force then their aiery Parents. And if we look narrowly into them we shall finde the whole strength of the one consists in the words [ by all which it appears] to wit, by his branches of accordance, which, hee confe [...]es, bear no fruit of proof: of the other in ( It [...] [Page 362] manifest.) The 14. & 15. par. are employ'd in showing S. Iohn over the Iews also, and not S. Peter over the Iews onely, and that Timothy was over Gentiles, but not a word that he was over Gentiles onely there found. In the 16 par. he huddles together a cōpany of his own demāds; which, I conceive, are not things like proofs. Though I confesse towards the middle of it he hath a most pregnant proof, and enough to make his honest Protestant Reader as glad as if he had found an Hare sitting; but, when Schism Disarm'd brought him nearer it, it proved to be nothing but a brown clodd. It was his most ample & most im­portantly-expressive Scripture-testimony from the bare monosyllable Come. The 17. par. hath no pretence of proofs; Nor yet his 18th, but is totally built upon his own words, [ The same may certainly be said] and [ I [...] must in all reason be extended no farther] &c. The 19th be­gins with his own suppositiou; and is prosecuted with the old Accordingly, which halesin by the arme another branch of accordance from S. Prosper, which ends all that parti­cular Controversy; the next par. that is the 20th begin­ing a new busines; that is, the donation of the Keyes. All the testimonies then hitherto related are accordances onely, now what an Accordance or a thing in agreement means is best known from himself, Answ. p. 49. l. 32.) that they are not proofs of the thing they agree to; that is, have no influence to conclude or infer it to be so, whence follows that the said testimonies are in themselves indif­ferent to the main point, and onely appliable to it; the sleightest manner of arguing that ever was argued by any man for such an important point, whose Soul a security in his Schism hath not made sleepy.

But, let us see to what these indifferent & nothing-pro­ving accordances relate and agree to; that is, let us see what is his onely proof for his main point. He intimates to us Answ. p. 53. l. 21. 24. and p. 49. l. 28. that of Gal. 2. [Page 363] To it then let us go, as being his onely proof he stands to for this point, which therefore we have purposely reserv'd till the last. We finde it in the beginning of parag. 7. of Schism, sleightly touched at thus. So again for the Vncir­c [...]mcision or Gentile Christians they were not S. Peters Pro­vince, but pec [...]liarly S. Paul's, by S. Peter's own confession & acknowledgment Gal. 2. 7. Expect Reader that this one­ly proof of Dr. H's shall come of well & be expresse for the point in question, how ever his branches of accordan­ces have sped.

To do him right I will put downe this 7th v. as I finde it in their owne translation; But contrariwise when they saw that the Gospell of the Vncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospell of the Circumcision was unto Peter. Where (and the same may be said of the following ver­ses) first, there is nothing at all expressing Iurisdiction which is our question, but onely of preaching the Gospell to them, that is of converting them; which himself ack­nowledged to be nothing to the matter of Iurisdiction. Answ. p. 51. l. 25. 26. Secondly, there is nothing there exprest of any exclusive power of preaching to Iews one­ly, as he expresly pretended Answ. p. 53. l. 22. from the­se or else the following verses. Thirdly, this particular Commission hath already ( Sect. 6.) been shown from the following verse to be nothing but God's more effica­cious assistance. Fourthly, here is not the least news of S. Peter's own confession & acknowledgment of any thing, as he in his onely proof in big terms pretends & quotes for it immediately Gal. 2. 7. unles he contend that the words ( they saw) signifie they confest & acknowledged; and so make seeing & saying to be all one; which is no­thing with him; fifthly, if he pretend this is not the place or verse of the Gal. which he relies on, I answer I neither finde this corrected in the Errata, not v. 9. (which in his Answer he recurrs to chiefly) quoted at all in his [Page 364] book of Schism c. 4. for this point, but onely for S. I [...] ­mes his being named before S. Peter p. 72. l. 10. And besides, the same exceptions of insufficiencie now made against this, are equally made against the other. Sixthly, his According [...]ies begin to come in play p 74. l. 4. a litle after his citation of this verse, which manifests this to ha­ve been the place pretended for his onely proof, to which the rest accorded. Lastly, this being then his solely-relied­on proof, after what a strange manner he manages it? one would think that he should have put down the words, and either have show'd them expresse; or else, if they were not, make his deductions from them: what does this acute-sincere man; he omits wholy the words; gravely and sleightly touches the false sence he hath given, them; puts downe his owne tenet, subjoins to it the words [S. Peter's own confession and acknowledgment] pretends them to be Scripture; & immediately cites the place, where no such words were found. Was ever such a weak Soul put into a body; and yet this is the man cry'd up for the best of the Protestant Controvertists.

Thus ends the slender-sented pursuit of Dr. H's proofs for this main fundamentall point of his, that S. Peter was not over the Gentiles. The result of which is, that all the Testimonies he alledged for it are no proofs but dwind­ling accordances onely; and his onely proof Gal. 2. both impertinent & falsified. So rotten are all Dr. H's bran­ches of accordances and also the saples tree it self, whence those soon-blasted Imps Sprouted.

But, besides the Gentile expression of branch of accor­dance, he hath here Answ. p. 53. two other pretty ex­pressions of this testimony, concerning Linus & Cle­mens being S. Peter's & S. Paul's Deacons; the one, that 'tis a seasonable advertissement; the other, that 'tis a phan­sy (as he writes it) And sayes that he who likes not the phansy should have directed his Reader to some other solid [Page 365] way to reconcile those repugnants of story concerning Linus & Clemens. As if it were so necessary a thing that all re­pugnances in Story should be reconcil'd, or that the re­pugnant sides must necessarily both be true; Wherefo­re, let him but first evidence that either part of that ne­ver-as yet-reconcil'd repugnance is certainly tru, & I will undertake to reconcile them better then Dr. H. hath do­ne in making one over Iews the other over Gen [...]iles one­ly. Although, if one side or both be false, I must con­fesse it beyond my skill to reconcile truths with fals­hoods, or falshoods with one another. Moreover, Schism Disarm. p. 77. directed him expresly to some other wayes how the fathers went about to reconcile that repugnance; which he instead of confuting or so much as acknowledging I did, objects here that I should direct him to some other solid way▪ and truly, I shall ever ac­count the ancient fathers more solidly able to reconcile repugnances in Story near their dayes (were they recon­cileable (then such a weak iudgment, as Mr. H's so long after.

Sect. 22.
Dr. H. affected ignorance of the Popes Authority which hee impugns, framing his Objections against an immediate Governour, not a mediate or Svperiour. His pretended infallibility in proving S. Iohn higher in dignity of place than S. Peter. His speciall gift also in explicating Para­bles, and placing the sa [...]nts in Abraham's bosome.

Dr. H. of Schism c. 4. par. 13. affirmed that for ano­ther great part of the Christian world It is manifest that S. Peter had never to do, either mediately or immediately, in the planting or governing of it, and instanced in Asia pretended to be onely under S. Iohn. I answer'd ( Schism [Page 366] Disarm. p. 78.) that he brought nothing to prove his own It is manifest. He replies here ( Answ. p. 54.) that this is manifestly evinced by the testimonies annexed p. 14. and upon this calls me an Artificer, that he is now grown into some acquaintance with me, and yet (virtue is grown necessity with him) he must not take it amisse; nor shall he truly if I can give him any iust satisfaction. I de­sire to gain & keep every man's good will, though I will not court it by the least compliance nor kindnes to the detriment of Truth.

Bear in memory Reader this positiuely absolute t [...]sts of his, that S. Peter had nothing to do either mediately or immediately, &c. And if thou findest any word in any te­stimony produced by him, expressing this ample posi­tion, or that S. Peter had nothing to do in governing them mediately (which is the question) save onely that he govern'd them not immediately (which is nothing to our question) then I give thee leave to account me an Artificer or what thou wilt: but if thou findest not a word to that purpose, do thy self the right as to think Dr. H. is a most notorious deluder, & beware of him as such.

I shall put down all his testimonies as largely as him­self did in the 14. par. to which he refers me. The first is from Clemens Alexandrinus, [...] whe­re appointing Bishops; The second and third are from Eu­sebius, [...], where obtaining so­me one part, or lott. [...], he admini­stred the Churches there. Now, in these three testimonies we finde onely that S. Iohn appointed Bishops in Asia, which we grant that each Apostle might do where ever he came over all the world; that he obtained one certain lott or Bishoprick, to wit that of Ephesus, which signi­fies no more but that he was a particular Governour there; that he administred the Churches there; all which is competent to every Metropolitan in God's Church, [Page 367] whom yet wee see daily with our eyes to be under an hig­her Ecclesiasticall Governour, and cōsequently his Chur­ches under him are under the same Governour mediate­ly, although immediately under the inferior onely. His fourth testimony is a flat & wilfull falsification; 'Tis ta­ken from S. Prosper, & put down by him thus, Ioannes apud Ephesum Ecclesiam sacrauit, Iohn at Ephesus con­secrated a Church. Whereas the place it self is Gentium Ecclesiam sacrauit, consecrated the Church of the Gentiles. Now because all over this par. 'tis Dr. H's pretence that S. Iohn was at Ephesus over Iews onely, and the word Gentium would by no means be won to signify that, nor yet would the word [ Nations] (as he render'd it before) any way serve to signify onely Iews, he prudently maim'd the testimony, & left out the malignant word Gentium, because it could by no art be brought to favour, but vt­terly defy'd & contradicted his party. A politick Divine! yet as long as this rare crafts man in the art of falsifying can but call S. W. an Artificer all is well, & the good wo­men will believe him.

The testimonies for Timothy under S. Paul being over the Gentiles in Asia, are of the same strain or wor­se; the first of which expresses no more but, that he under­took the care of the Metropolis of Ephesus, that is, was par­ticular Metropolitan of that place. The second affirms at large that [...], &c. An whole entire Nation, that of Asia, was entrusted to him. Now S. W. imagining that an whole entire Nation could not signify Gentiles one­ly, or a part of that Nation, call'd it an unpardonable blindnes to alledge this testimony for a tenet quite con­trary to what it exprest; But I am suddenly struck blind my self and caught that disease onely by seeing Dr. H's blindnes. And first, I am blind for not seeing that the testimony related to Timothy & not to S. Paul; whereas himself promising us in the end of his 13. par. to insist on [Page 368] S. Iohn & S. Paul, and after he had treated of S. Iohn in the 14th using these very words in the 15. throughout all the Lydian Asia the faith was planted by S. Paul among the Gentile part and by him Timothy constituted Bishop there; and then immediately introducing his testimony with so saith Chrysostome, he must be blind who could think this testimony was not mean't of S. Paul. Add that the testi­mony it self speaks not of constituting a Bishop, & so gave me no occasion to imagin it related to Timothy's being thus constituted; and besides, the words ( throughout all Asia) which he joyns there with S. Paul, were fittest to be related to [...] in the testimony. Nor, can it be pretended to have been an affected oversight; since I gain not the least advantage by it, it being equally strong for Dr. H's weak argument whether Timothy or S. Paul were onely over Gentiles there, for which it was produ­ced. My second blindnes is that I could not see the ob­vious Answer, which is that S. Chrysostome puts it onely in opposition to the word [...], precedent; the testimo­ny being) as he afterwards puts it) that Timothy was en­trusted with [...], a Church, [...], or ra­ther an entire Nation. Now in the book of Schism he omitted himself the word [...], and the former part of the testimony, & then tells me '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 say's that [...] is not set to denote all the severall sorts of caetus in Asia; I ask, do [...]s it exclude any, or is it set in opposition to the Iews? if not, how can it possibly signifie the Gentile part onely, for which hee produced it? my blindnes then, Reader, consists in this that I would not renounce the most common light of nature, & think that an whole & a part is the same; nor consent to believe that the words ( an whole entire Nation) signifie one sort of [Page 369] people living there or part of that Nation onely.

In order to these late testimonies it is to be observed, first, that our tenet makes the Pope over the whole Church in this sence (not that he governs each parti­cular Church immediately but) that he is chief in Au­thority & over those inferior Bishops, Metropolitans, &c. who are the immediate Governours of those parti­cular Churches, and so he becomes mediately in this sence over all Churches, or the whole Church.

Secondly our parallel tenet of S. Peter is not that when he was Apostle he could preach in more places then ano­ther, but that he had an higher Authority then the other, each of which could preach in any or all places of the world▪ and that when he was fixt Bishop, he had an in­fluence of Authority over any other Apostles when they were fixt Bishops in other places, not that he was imme­diate Bishop or Metropolitan of their particular Bisho­pricks.

Thirdly, hence is evident that the proofs which can prejudice this point must signifie that those particular Apostles, Metropolitans, or Bishops, had none supe­rior to themselves, and by consequence who were media­te [...]y over their Churches, and that it avails nothing at all nor comes to the point to prove that such & such were over such & such particular Iurisdictions immediately: no more than if some writer 500. years hence should ar­gue that the Pope was not in the year 1650. Supreme Go­vernour in our Church, because he findes at that time such a one Primate in France, & another Arch-bishop of Toledo in Spain.

Fourthly, it is no lesse evident that Dr. H's pretence that it is manifest that S. Peter had nothing to do either me­diately or immediately in governing the Churches of Asia, from the former testimonies which exprest onely that those Churches, or that country were under those Apo­stles [Page 370] or Bishops, without a Syllable signifying that those Apostles themselves were not vnder an higher Apostle, and so their Churches mediately subject to him; it is evi­dent, I say, that he hath not produc't a word to prove his position except his own, It is manifest; and conse­quently it was no artificiall trick, but plain downright naturall Truth to challenge him with that palpable weak­nes.

Fiftly, his whole processe is in another respect totally impertinent & frivolous. His fundamentall intent was to limit the Iurisdictions of the Apostles, as such; & to ma­ke them mutually-exclusive under that notion, by gi­ving to each proper Apostolicall Provinces; and here, proceeding to make good that his intent, he proves them limitted as they were Bishops; which is a quite different thing. For every Bishop, as such, is over his own pecu­liar flock and particulariz'd to it; where as that of an A­postle; being not a settled Authority as the other, hath not in it's own nature any ground to be constant to such, but may be promiscuous to all. Though it was not for­bidden to any Apostle to settle himself in some particu­lar seat, & so become a Bishop of that place.

The result then of all the former testimonies is this, that Dr. H. avoyd's the whole question of the mediate Government of S. Peter, which is the point his Adversary holds, and disproves the immediate onely which wee ne­ver held, and, when he hath done, tells his Readers Ans­wer p. 56. S. W. hath little care to consider that, wherein the difficulty consists; when as himself never toucht the diffi­cultie at all.

But I had forgot the beginning of his 14. par. that S. Iohn had the dignity of place before all other in Christ's life time, even before S. Peter himself. Now I went about to parallell it by the proportion an elder Brother hath to a younger, which is a precedence without Iurisdiction, & [Page 371] so resembles Dr. H's dry Primacy. But the Dr. ( Answ. p. 55.) catches my similitude by one of those feet by which it was not pretended to run, add's to it excellencie of power of his own head which was never named nor insisted on by me, and when he hath done say's that 'tis an addition of my fertile fancy; whereas I never pretended it as his words but my parallell; nor yet put force in the supe­riority of Iurisdiction, but in that of a dry precedency onely: neither meaning nor expressing any more by hig­hest in dignity, than himself did by dignity of place before all others.

In his Answ. p. 54 he tells us he mention'd two things of Iohn. 1. of Christ's favour to him, and this (he say's) is infallibly inferr'd from the title of beloved Disciple. I stand not upon the thing, both because 'tis unconcerning our question, & true in it self; onely I am glad to see that Dr. H. is more certain in his inferences than his Church is of her faith; since he is confident of his infallibility in those; whereas, in this, to wit, in faith, he onely af­firm's that it is not strongly probable his Church will erre, Repl. p. 16. At length, Protestant Reader, thou seest whether thou art to recurre for thy infallible Rule of faith; to wit, to Dr. H [...]s inferences. The second is S. Iohn's dignity of place before all others, which (he say's) was ir­refragably concluded from the leaning in his breast at Sup­per. Here again Dr. H. is irrefragable & infallible; yet he no where reads that S. Iohn thus lean'd on Christ's breast more then once: nor can we imagin that our Sa­viour taught his Disciples that complementalnes as to sit constantly in their ranks at meat, seeing that in this very occasion, to wit, that very night, he forbid such carriage by his own example, and that euen at meat, Lu­ke 22. v. 26. 27. L [...] him that is gr [...]atest among you be as the younger, & he that is chief as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat or he that serveth? [Page 372] Is not he that sitteth at meat? But I am among you as he that serveth. So far was our Saviour from giving occa­sion for over weening by any constant partiality of pla­cing them at table, that his expresse doctrine and exam­ple was to bring them to an humle indifferency, and that in serving one another, much more in sitting before or after another.

But, to return to Dr. H. as he is Master of ceremonies to the Apostles, & places them at table; His doctrine is that S. Peter had a Primacy of order onely amongst the Apostles without Iurisdiction, which consequently could be nothing but a dry complementary precedency to walk, stand, or speak first, &c. for no greater Primacy can be imagin'd, nor in higher matters, if we abstract (as he does) from Iurisdiction. Again, his doctrine is likewise that S. Iohn at table had the dignity of place before all others even before S. Peter himself; so that to make his doctrine consonant, we must conceive that S. John had a Primacy of order before S. Peter and the rest in sitting, & S. Peter had a Primacy of order before the rest & S. Iohn too in standing or walking A rare doctor! 'Tis a won­der that he gave not Iudas also a kinde of Primacy befo­re all the Apostles in a third respect, to wit, in dipping with out Saviour at the same time in the dish; since the leaning on Christ's breast was done no after then the dip­ping in the dish was, for any thing we read, both were equally accidentall, for any thing we know (for we finde it no where exprest that our Saviour plac't him or he himself there by design,) And in this the dipping argues more dignity then the sitting, in that the sitting was one­ly next our Saviour, but the dipping was at the same time: which would haue grounded an infal ible and irrefragable inference for Dr. H. that Iudas had an absolute Primacy, and have served him rarely to over throw S. Peter's, had it not hapt that Iudas was in other respects malignant, [Page 373] and so it was not the Drs interest to own the argument. But Dr. H. proceeds. And accordingly it unavoydably fol­lous that Lazarus, being represented parabolically in Abra­hams bosome, is there described to be in the next place to the father of the faithfull, and it being certain that some one or more saints are next Abraham, I presume we may believe Christ that Lazarus is capable of that place, all S. W. scru­ples have not the least validity in them. Observe the solid Logick of this man. My scruples or objections were Schism Disarm. p. 79. that if being in Abrahams bosome ‘were being in dignity of place next to the father of the faith full, it follow'd that Lazarus was a bove all the Pa­triarchs and Prophets except Abraham: As also, that none was in Abrahams bosome except Lazarus onely, since there could be no more Nexts but one.’ Instead of answering he repeats what he had said before; onely he add's fine words to amuze his Readers (whom he sup­poses must be fools) as Accordingly, unavoydably, Pa­rabolitically, it being certain, I presume we may believe Christ, &c. gentilely, calls my objections, scruples, & then assures the Reader they have not the least validity in them. But, if we ask, where did Christ ever say that La­zarus was above all the Patriarchs & Prophets except Abraham, truth would answer us that Christ never said any such thing, but one Dr. H. who, like a more mo­dest kinde of David George, calls his own words. Christ's, his own sayings God's word when he lists. And as for de­grees of glory, which he talks of here, I wonder what would become of them if his doctrine should take place; for since he knows well the Ancient fathers constantly af­firm that all the former faithfull were in the bosome of Abraham, and this according to him (as being next Abraham) signifies dignity of place before all others, it follows that all the multitude of faith full Souls had each of them the dignity of place before all others; that is, each [Page 374] of them was next Abraham & highest; hemming him in (as you must conjecture) on every side, without any more priority of order between them than the Philoso­phers make between the right hand & the left in a round pillar. And thus much at present (which is as much or more than such trifling non-sence deserves) for Infallible, irrefragable, according, unavoydable, Parabolicall, Christ-pretending, all-scruples invalidating Dr. H.

Sect. 23.
Dr. H's Falsification of Falsifications, and with what mul­titudes of weaknesses hee attempts to take vp the busines.

IN his book of Schism c. 4. par. 16. Dr. H. demanded very confidently of the Romanists what could be said in any degree probably for S. Peter's universall Pastorship over this Asia whose seven Metropoles are so early famous, being honoured with Christ's Epistle to the Revelations. Now S. W. as any ordinary Reader would, imagin'd that Dr. H. put some force in these latter words to prove the former, that S. Peter had nothing to do with them, both because these are the onely positive words in the whole paragraph all the rest being interrogatories onely, as also because I could not ghesse what they did there else, unles it were to divert the Readers eye from the question by such imper­tinent expressions, nor had I observed yet that Dr. H. was such a strong reasoner, as to think a proof even con­trary to his tenet much lesse impertinent, unworthy his method of arguing.

He pretends to have mean't nothing by those words save onely that those seven were considerable parts of the universall Church, as if Christ wrote Epistles to Churches, not because they stood need, but because they were bigg ones. But let them be considerable, what then: he say's [Page 375] Answ. p. 57. there is no pretence that S. Peter should be said [...], to feed or to govern, or so much as to have medled with the administration of these Churches of Asia. I answer, there is the same pretence that he was mediate Governor of these as of any other; that is, was over those persons who were over those Churches; and though we hold not that he fed, govern'd, or administred those as their par­ticular & immediate Overseer, yet we make account that our Saviour said thrice to S. Peter, Feed my Sheep. Iohn. 21. as also that the word Sheep excluded none, but inclu­ded those of Asia also: For Mr. H. I suppose, doubts not but the Christians there were Christs sheep aswell as the rest. How this commission to S. Peter to feed Christs Sheep was particular to him shall be seen afterwards. Part. 3. Sect. 2.

But now room for Dr. H's Falsification of Falsifications, which thunders with so many volleys of power limitting expressions, as, were it charg'd with Truth, would qui­te have batter'd down the walls of Rome. It needs no mo­re but repeating to show it notorius; '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 onely to himself when he shall come to him, 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Here, Reader, thou seest terms most restrictive of Iurisdiction, & so most nay solely-important to the question; no other Apostle, could coun­termand, &c. no other Appeall, no farther directions, one­ly to himself, &c. Thou seest, I say, these; and thou seest likewise the place of Scripture quoted immediately for all these. Now, Schism Disarm'd p. 81. show'd from their own translation that there was not one word of this long rabble in the place alledged, but the bare, barren & use­les monosyllable Come. Is it possible now that any man should go about to cloak such a falsification, which evi­dence [Page 376] as clear as eyesight had manifested in it's most sha­me full nakednes? nothing is impossible to be done in Dr. H's way.

He excuses himself first Answ. p. 57. l. 9. because he thought it was conclusible from those words, 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. But who bad him think so, when there was never a word in the testimony or in the whole Epistle but might have been said by a Metropolitan to a Bishop, or a Bishop to any Priest; to wit, that he would order things when he ca­me, bidding him be have himself well, &c. Again, if he intended to conclude, why did he not put some expression of that his intent, that the Reader might not be deluded by his quoting the place immediately after those words: This pretence therefore is most frivolous & vain. First, because his words are positive, absolute, &, as it were, commanding our assent from the Authority of Scriptu­re, not exprest like an inference or conclusion; doth not S. Paul, &c. as also because they are relations of matters of fact; and, lastly, because they who conclude from Scri­pture, put the place first, & then deduce from it; whe­reas, he quotes the place after his own words, as we use to do for words found really in Scripture; wherefore, either he intended not to conclude but to gull the honest Reader that his sole important forgeries were sure Scri­pture; or else, if he meant to conclude, he very wise­ly put his conclusion before the premises, and such a con­clusion as had but one unconcerning & useles word com­mon to it & the premises.

Secondly, he tells us, that to say that he inferr'd the whole conclusion from the word come is one of S. W's arts whereas I charged him not for inferring thence, but for putting down those words for pure Scripture. Again, himself (so good is his memory) confesses this same thing seven or eight lines before, which he here renounces; where having mention'd the former long rabble, he told [Page 377] us in expresse terms that he thought it was conclusible from S. Paul's words, 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Now then, there being not one word of this pretended conclusion found in that place, save the monosyllable Come, nor one exclusive particle, nor even the least ground of any, he must either infer his pretended conclusion from that or from no­thing.

Thirdly he alledges that he thought his grounds had been visible enough being thus laid; and then proceeds to lay them. But the iest is he never layd down any such preten­ded grounds at all in the book of Schism where he cited that place, and so it was impossible they should be visi­ble, being then, perhaps, not so much as in their causes. And as for these pretended grounds they are nothing but a kinde of explication of that place, that S. Paul sent an whole Epistle of Instructions, & hoped to give him farther instructions, that he should behave himself well in his office, &c. which are all competent to any Bishop in order to a Priest, or to any subaltern Governor in respect of an inferior; and so hinders not but S. Paul might be under another, though thus over Timothy.

Fourthly, as for those exclusive words, no other Apo­stle could countermand or interpose in them, leaving no Ap­peal, no place for farther directions, onely to himself, which were objected, & so it belonged to him if he could not show them exprest there & so clear his falsified citation, at least to show them concluded & deduced thence, as 6. or 7. lines before he had promist us. But he quite preva­ricates even from deducing them thence when it comes to the point, and instead of doing so & proving them from the pretended place, he repeats again the same demands bids us prove the contrary. I now demand (saith he) whether S. Paul left any other Appeal or place for farther directions save onely to himself. I answer, does the place alledged say any thing to the contrary, or is any such thing [Page 378] conclusible thence, as you pretended: If it be, why do not you make good your own proof from the place, & show this restrictive sence either there in expresse terms, or el­se by framing your conclusion from it? why do you instead of thus doing your duty, stand asking me the same que­stion over again? He proceeds. Whether could any other Apostle by any power given him by Christ countermand or interpose in them? what need you ask that question? you knew long ago that our Answer would be affirmative that S. Peter could, in case he saw it convenient for the good of God's Church; or, what is the asking this question over again to the showing that the contrary was either expresly or conclusively there, as you pretended. If any could, let him be named & his power specified, saith the Dr. Is not this a rare man to counterfeit himself ignorant whom we hold for Head of the Apostles, when as himself hath from the beginning of this Chapter impugned S. Peter as held such by us! And to carry the matter as if he delay'd his proofs till he knew our Answer, aswell known to him before hand, as his own name. It follows, & let the power be proved by virtue whereof he should thus act. I marry: now the Dr. is secure, when all else fails he hath constantly recourse hither to hide his head. When his Ar­gument or proof is shown to bee falsify'd in the expresse terms, hee pretends to conclude thence; and when 'tis shown unable to conclude any thing, instead of procee­ding to make it good or show that cōclusible from then­ce, which he promised, he leaves it of, as some imper­tinent questions, and bids his Answerer take his turn & prove; because he (alas) is graveld and cannot go a step further. This done he triumphs. But S. W. dares not, I am sure doth not affirm this. What dare not I, and do not I affirm? that S. Peter had power over the rest of the Apo­les in things cōcerning the good of the universall Church. 'Tis my expresse tenet, which he is at present impugning; [Page 379] and which I both do affirm & dare maintaine (so preva­lent is Truth) against Dr H. though back't by forty mo­re learned then himself. But this politick Adversary of mine, seeing he could not argue me out of my faith, would needs fright me or persuade me from it, threat'ning me first that I dare not; next, assuring mee that I do not affirm i [...]. This solid discourse premised, hee shuts up with an acclamation of victory thus: And, if it cannot be said (as no doubt it cannot) then where was S. Peter's supreme Pastorship? Where all the force of this upshot of his lies in the If, and no doubt, both of them equally addle & frivolous, since himself & all the world knows very well that we both can & do affirm & hold that S. Peter was Superior in Authoritie to all the rest of the Apost­les.

Thus Dr. Hr. toyes it with his Readers, hoping that the greater part of them will be arrant fools. First, put­ting down a company of expressions totally disanulling S. Peter's Authority, and immediately quoting for them, 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Next, when he is challenged of falsifying, instead of showing any word there more then the poor monosyllable Come, saying, he onely mean't it was con­clusible or deducible thence. And lastly, instead of conclu­ding, proving, or deducing that Iurisdiction limiting sen­ce from those words, which at least was necessary, one­ly saying the same words over again, asking some que­stions to which he knew the answer long ago, bidding his Answerer supply his turn & prove, telling us we dare not & do not affirm what his own knowledge & what his own eyes assure him we both dare & do in this very present Controversy, and then concluding all with an If built upon the former, & no doubt bred in his own head & grounded upon his own fancy. Is such an Adversary worth the losse of an hour's time to confute! were it not that the Authority he hath got by a sleightly-connected [Page 380] 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.

Sect. 1.
How Dr. H's Shuflingly avoids either to acknowledge or d [...]s­acknowledge the notion of an Evidence given. What he means by his Evidences; and what is to be expected from Catholikes in manag [...]ng a Wit-controversy concerning Scripture. His weak attempt to clear himself of Prevari­cation, Injuriousnes and Calumny objected.

MY 13. Section in Schism Disarm'd begun with putting down the true notion of an Evidence; having already shown p. 17. that nothing but a perfect certainty sprung from such rigorous & convincing proofs could rational­ly oblige the understanding to assent; and that all assents, sprung from that, were originiz'd from passion. When­ce follows that the first Protestants could no way ratio­nally relinquish the Authority & Government of the former Church they were bred in, & conclude in their thoughts that her Doctrine was false, her Government an usurpation, unles moved by the said light of evident & demonstrative Reasons; that is, unles they had grounds sufficient in their own nature to convince them that it was so, and could not but be so. For, surely, even in common prudence it had been the most rash action imaginable to hazard the most greeveus sin of Schism, [Page 382] & consequently an eternity of misery to their Souls upon probability onely.

How great a favour Dr. H. had done himself, (who, though he begun first to write,) yet now Answ. p. 50. l. 32. expresseth a great desire to be at an end of Contro­versie; and how great a kindnes he had confer'd on S. W to have answer'd positively to these two points I or no, to wit whether lesse then such a rigorous Evidence could iustify the renouncing an Authority & possession so qualified, and whether his pretended Evidences, I or no, were such, I need not much declare. The whole con­troversy depends upon these two hinges & will quickly finde a decisive conclusion, if these points were positive­ly answer'd to, & vigorously pursued. Now, my notion of ‘a Testimony Evidence (Schism Disarm. p. 88.)’ was this, that the testimony it self must be authentick beyond dispute; and the words alledged so directly expressing ‘the thing to be proved that they need no additions or explications to bring them home to the matter, but are of themselves full, ample, & clear, & such as the Al­ledger himself, were he to expresse his thoughts in the present Controversy would make choice of to use.’ Whether he likes this definition of a Testimony Evidence or no, he is resolu'd wee shall not know. He dares not be negative or say he dislikes it, because, what ever te­stimony falls short of this, falls short likewise of proving that the thing must be; and so, concludes onely that it may be; which being too weak a ground in the iudgment of every prudent Conscientious man to hazard his Soul upon, as he must if he begin to Schismatize upon no better Grounds, he saw it could turn to his disgrace if he deny'd the notion given, or pretended that lesse Eviden­ce would serve in a Controversy about Schism: nor durst he bee affirmative or approve of it, because he saw he had not produced one testimony in his whole book [Page 383] worth a straw, if it were brought to that Test, nor worthy to bestyled an Evidence.

Wherefore being in this perplexity, and (as the pro­verb is) holding a Wolf by the ears, he recurs to his old Prevarications, and instead of approving or disappro­ving of my Description of an Evidence, tells me ( Answ. p. 58.) what he meant by his own Evidences; to wit, that he takes Evidence in the familiar vulgar notion for a testi­mony to prove any Question of Fact, either in the Affirma­tion or the nagative. But what kinde of Testimonies the­se must be which can serve in such a concerning discour­se, whether such as I described heretofore, manifesting that the thing must be, or not be; or probable ones, in­ferring onely that his Affirmative or Negative may be; or whether these Testimonies need be proofs at all, but branches of accordance onely, or spoken in agreement (as almost all the Testimonies he hath hitherto produced were) he defines nothing. By his carriage in his book of Schism he seems to mean these latter onely; nor do his words here exact more then onely a testimony, not ex­pressing any thing at all concerning the quality of this testimony, whether the Authority of it must be valid, or invalid; clear, or obscure; expresse or dumbe; en­tire, or maim'd with an Ellipsis; originally proving, o [...] agreable onely; set down right, or corrupted & falsified; an Orthodox Fathers or an Arch-Heretick's; all is one with Dr. H. still that testimony is one of his Vulgarly-Styl'd Evidences; and so, vulgar & half-witted Souls will rely upon them in a Controversy importing no lesse then their eternall Salvation.

‘In the same place of Schism Disarm'd Dr. H. was charg'd with prevaricating from his pretended promi­se, instead of bringing Evidence of his own, solving our pretended ones; and that this was to sustain a dif­ferent part in the dispute he first undertook; to wit, the [Page 384] part of the Defendant, for so we used ever to style him who solved objections.’ He answers, that the one pos­sible way to testify any negative is to take a view of the pla­ces the Affirmers pretend, and to shew that those places ha­ve no such force in them. Obserue these canting words [ the one possible way] so handsomly preparing for an evasion, which though more likely to signify the onely possible way (as Vnus is often taken for Solus in Latin) yet he hath a glosse in readines to say he meant' otherwise. But, be­cause he puts not down the other possible way, correspon­ding to the one, we shall take it as it must in all honestly-meant probability sound, and ask him whether there was ever such a strange position heard of in the Schools that there should be no possible way to testify a Negative but by solving the Affirmative places. Are there no Negati­ve Testimonies in the words? or cannot a Negative testi­mony testify a Negative point without necessarily recur­ring to solve Affirmatives? Wee were taught in Logick to prove Negatives by concluding in Celarent or Ferio, without being forc't necessarily to stand answering the ar­guments in Barbara and Darij for the Affirmative: whe­reas, according to Dr. H's new Logick, the onely way to prove a Negative point must be to solve the Affirma­tive proofs. To omit that it shall bee shown presently how the solving Affirmatives, was no one way to testify a Negative.

‘Again, he was shown by Schism Disarm'd that this way of arguing was rather indeed to bring obscurity than Evidence,’ for all that it can pretend is this, that the conclusion follows not out of those testimonies or pre­mises, & therein is terminated it's force, nor doth it pro­ceed so far as to prove or infer that the thing in it self is vntrue. Indeed, if it be known first that the Opponent holds his tenet upon no other Grounds save onely that testimony, and that be shown plainly to be vnable to [Page 385] conclude, he will be obliged to relinquish his tenet so far as not to hold it any more, till he sees better ground; yet still he is not obliged to embrace, or assent to the con­trary position, if he sees no Evidence for it; but to sus­pend all assent one way or other; and to think rather that perhaps his may yet have other Grounds to prove it true, for any thing he knows Much lesse is it proved at all that the contrary is true, though all his arguments be solved till evidence be brought for it. Wherefore, as long as this is not manifested, to wit that he hath no other tenour upon which he holds his position, the thing is much fur­ther from being concluded, no not even ad hominem to be false; for though that medium do not establish it, another may. But now, if it be manifest that the Adversary builds least of all upon those places the other solves, nay no­thing at all in the manner that the other thinks they are to be managed and undertakes to solve them, then the solving such Testimonies sinks into the miserablest, & lowest degree of force, nay even as low as nothing.

This being our present case, observe I beseech thee prudent Reader the infinite weaknes of this Drs discour­sive facultie. He first goes about to prove our tenet false from solving 2. or 3 places of Scripture; whereas that very way of arguing can infer no more, but that those places conclude not for it; nor are places of Scripture ar­guments that we build upon at all for our faith, as ex­plicable by wit, in which sence he impugns them, but onely as they are explicable by universall Tradition, our Rule of faith. Since then Dr. H. not so much as pretends to solve them according to the sence which Tradition gi­ves them (for he no where pretends to shew that the at­testation & practice of immediate forefathers did not ever give them this sence) 'tis evident he hath not in this processe impugned our faith at all, seeing he impugns no tenour nor argument at all upon which we build, or hold [Page 386] our faith Indeed, our Drs undertake sometimes to argue ad hominem against them and abstracting from our Rule of faith, universall Tradition, fall to interpret Scripture with them proceeding upon other Grounds, to wit, upon private skill & learning, to shew our advantage over them in their own, and to them the onely way. If then Mr. H. pretended onely to try his wit with our Doctors in this place; then (were his way of procedure by solving Te­stimonies allowable in reason) I should approve of his intention, so he exprest it; But, if he say he mean't to impugn our faith, or build his own, he can never pretend it, unles he solve, or impugn those Grounds upon which wee build our faith. Make account then, Reader, that that which Dr. H. and I are now about is nothing at all to faith, but onely an exercise of wit and private skill; and consists in this, whether of us can make words lest without life & stark dead to our hands, by Grammati­call & Criticall quibbling move more dexterously & smartly towards the end we drive at; and is all one as if Lawyers should consent to abstract from custome & knowledge of Ancestors, and the books of the known laws, (as I do now from Practise & Tradition, the sole true Foundation of faith,) and dispute out of some plia­ble, or obscure passages in odde histories, and some let­ters written onely upon occasion, as Gildas, & some such few remnants of that time in the Reign of the Brittains, by what laws the kingdom was then governed.

Again, since we build not all upon places of Scripture as explicable by private learning, it belongs not to us to shew them evidently concluding for us, as thus explica­ted; no more then it doth to divines to demonstrate my­steries of faith by reason, which depend upon another ground, to wit, Authority. Wee acquit our selves well if wee shew that, what is there, is consistent with our faith; as divines do, if they can show mysteries consistent with [Page 387] and not contradictory to reason; and wee do more then the necessity of our cause, or reason obligeth us to, if wee shew them rather sounding to our advantage as thus explicable. For, how can any man be bound in reason to show that thing sounding in his behalf, upon which neither he nor his cause relies? whereas, it belongeth to the Protestants, who rely upon Scripture explicable by private wit for their faith, to prove evidently that it is for them, and bears no probability against them. In the sa­me manner, as when Catholikes go about to prove their faith from Scripture as explicable by Tradition, it be­longs to them to shew that explication infallibly cer­tain; because they rely upon it as the Rule of their faith.

‘Secondly, Dr. H. was charged with a palpable iniu­riousnes in making the answering our places of Scri­pture the summe of his first proofs, and yet omitting our cheefest place of all.’ Io. 21. 15. 16 17. Dr. H. replies ( Answ. p. 59.) this is iust as Doctor Stapleton deales with M. Calvin; I answer, it is very likely; for I do not doubt but Dr. H. inherits his father Calvin's faults, & so deserves the same reprehension. But, how dealt Dr. Stapleton with that good man M. Calv [...]n? why he call'd a Text of Scripture the most important place, because it was not mention'd, So sayes Mr. Calvin's friend, Dr. H if wee will beleeve him; but, till he proves it better then by onely saying it, wee shall take libertie to think that friendship blindes. Next, he tells us he hath given some account Rep. Sect. 8. n. 10. why hee had done us no injury in omitting it; and indeed, 'tis onely some account; for he tells us there sleightly no more than this, that first, by the very position of it: but, secondly, more by the occasion; and yet more, Thirdly, by the matter of the words that pla­ce is prejudged from being any more than an Exhortation to S. Peter to discharge his duty. But, is there no particula­rity in order to S. Peter? An hard case, that after thrice [Page 388] saing, Simon Son of Ionas louest thou me? more than these? (and there upon) feed thou my sheep, nothing should be yet spoken in order to S. Peter in particular. The some account then, which Dr. H hath rendred us in the place related, is that he hath said there three things upon his own head & proved none of them; which (as I take it) is to give no account at all. His answers to it in other pla­ces shall be replied to other where. Thirdly, he assures us that his reason of omitting it was by him with perfect truth rendred p. 93. from his full persuasion that it had so very litle appearance of Strength in it, and had been so often answer'd that it would not be deemed vsefull to any that hee should descend to it. Let us examin a litle Dr. H's perfect truth. I ask, had he reckon'd all the numerous places in Controvertists where this & other texts had been ans­wet'd, & found that this had been far ofter replied to? if he did not, how can he affirm it, or alledge this for his excuse? if he did) which I confesse is a task very proper for his ( Genius) why does not he show us tables of ac­counts how many times the one, & how many times the other hath been vrged? till which time, he gives us lea­ve to beleeve that it is as incredible he hath done it, as it were ridiculous to have done it. Again, me thinks rea [...]on should tell him, that if it were oftner answered, it was oft­ner vrged; and that it had not been oftner vrged without having some more appearance of truth in it, then the rest, which yet the other part of his excuse denies. If he say, that it was vrged more prevalently; still, it will ly at his dore that it was more worthy his taking notice of: other­wise, to excuse himself, he indites his fellow-Protestan' [...]s of plain folly in answering that place oftner, which on the one side had very litle apperance of truth in it, and on the other side had been neither very often, nor very prevalently vrged. Fourthly, he asks if there be any farther invisible reserve in that place not taken notice of by M ^r [Page 389] Hart in the conference with Dr. Reynolds, I answer; tru­ly, I was not by; nor shall I credit a relation which their own partiall Scribes writ, & their own partiall selves brag they have under the disputants hands; it is as easy to counterfeit a hand, as to counterfeit a testimony; If the­re be no such reserve, then Dr H. tells us he must remem­ber the issue of that conference. And what was that? That Mr Hart flew of from this text to that of Luke 22. v 31. from which being (saith he) soon beaten by evidence (This Evidence, I conceive, was some nothing-proving branch of accordance like those Evidences of Dr. H's) The poor Papist, if wee will beleeve his enemies, was put to con­clude in these words. Yet, I know not how, me thinks I can­not be persuaded but that it maketh somewhat for Peter's Supremacy. Words so sillily unlikely, that the very rehear­sall of them is enough to disgrace the whole relation, and the alledgers themselves. Nor is it lesse unlikely that M▪ Hart should flie from this place of S. Iohn to that of Luke 22. v. 31. to prove S. Peter's Supremacy; where no­thing is found but onely this, Simon, Simon, be hold Sa­tan hath desired to have you to sift you as wheat. I wonder now in which of these words Dr. Reynolds his friends will pretend Mr Hart placed the most force for S. Peter's Supremacy; whether in the ordinary & common name Simon, in Satan, in Sifting, or in wheat. Is not this Dr. a great wit to bring such unauthoriz'd & unlikely trifles for his excuse? yet necessity (alas) hath no law: He tells us here he must remember this wise Story; as if it were such a necessary busines to give his reader a memorandum of a thing which he can never make good; and is in it self the most unlikely truth and the likeliest fiction that can be imagined.

Thirdly Dr. H. was charged of manifestly calumniating the Catholikes in calling their tenet cōcerning the power of the Keys a peculiarity & inclosure of S. Peter He goes [Page 390] about to discharge his credit and Conscience by shewing both from my words and the Catholike tenet that S. Pe­ter had some particular power of Keyes, & sayes he mean't onely that this particular power was a peculiarity & inclo­sure of S. Peter. That the Catholike tenet, & consequent­ly mine is that he had such a particular degree of power of the Keyes promised, and given him, I willingly gra [...] and, had Dr. H. exprest so much there, he had not been charged with Calumny; but if he exprest no such thing there, nay carried it so, as if wee had held that no Apo­stles had the Keyes but S. Peter, then all the emptie wor­dishnes in his Reply & Answer will avail nothing to clear him from so grosse a fault.

Now, my reasons why I charged him with the said Calumny are these, because of Schism p. 86. Speaking of the Donation of the power of the Keyes in an unlimitted & universall expression, he says of himself, that this power Math. 16. 19. is promised to S. Peter; by which words con­sequently he must mean the power of the Keyes in com­mon; for it is opposite to his tenet to say that any parti­cular degree of that power was promised that Apostle. This done he puts down the text of Scripture, I will give unto thee the Keyes, &c. and then subjoyns these words. But to him that from hence pretends this Donative, & consequent power as a peculiarity & inclosure of S. Peter's, these consi­derations will be of force to supersede his conclusion. Now, what this Donative and power was meant of, is sufficiently exprest before, to wit the power of the Keyes in generall without any restriction or particularization. Wherefore, it is most manifest from his own words that he would ha­ve made the honest Reader beleeve our tenet was that the power of the Keyes in generall & common was S. Peter's peculiarity & inclosure. Secondly, one of his considera­tions to supersede our conclusion (as he calls it) were two places of Scripture, expressing onely that the Keyes were [Page 391] given to all the Apostles in common, but nothing at all that they were given equally to all; wherefore they can no wayes impugn the inequality of S. Peter's having such a power, but onely S. Peter's having it alone; since no­thing can be imagin'd plainer then that the same Notion of a thing may plurally agree to many, and yet in une­quall degrees notwithstanding, there being almost as ma­ny Instances of it, as there are things in the world. Evi­dent therefore it is that he impugned S. Peter's having the power of the Keyes alone, and so calumniated us in coun­terfeiting that to be our tenet, & impugning it as such, unles perhaps he will say hee intēded to impugn nothing at all. Thirdly, what means the word [ inclusive] Is it not (if applied to S. Peter's having the power of the Keyes (as it is by him) as plain an expression as could be in­vented, to signify none had that power but S. Peter? Ma­nifest therefore it is that he intended to make his Reader beleeve that wee held such an absurd Position, and then­ce erected a rare Trophee of his own Victory, by she­wing (as he easily might) that all the other Apostles had that power as well as he, or in common.

But observe how neatly Dr. H. deludes his readers in going about to clear himself of this Calumny; for instead of shewing from his own words that he signified that which wee held for S. Peter's peculiarity & inclosure was onely a higher degree of that power, which had been the proper way to shew him not faulty in the said words, he prevaricates quite from that onely necessary method, and runs to shew from my words & the Catholick tenet that wee grant S. Peter a more particular power of the Keyes; entangling poore S. W. on all sides p 61. and obliging him by most powerfull arguments to grant that which he be­leeves already as a point of his faith; and, when he hath done, he insults that that particular power was S. Peter's peculiarity, & inclosure; but never goes about to shew [Page 392] (which onely was his duty) that he applied those words pe­culiarity & inclosure to that particular power of the Keyes in his book of Schism, where he was charged to have ca­lumniated us but to the common power onely. Though the question be not whether Catholicks hold that S. Pe­ter had an higher degree of this power, which was his in­closure, but whether Dr. H. expressed such to be our tenet in his book of Schism, or rather pretended that the ha­ving the very power of the Keyes it self was held by us to be his inclosure, & peculiarity, and so calumniated us in the highest degree. Thus Dr. H. pleads his own cause, and then concludes himself secure from being like S. W. in calumniating him with whom he came to dispute.

After this Answ. p. 62. the Dr. is mistakingly appre­hensive of Sprights, and is troubled at the two appearan­rances of the same Romanist. For imposing on him two propositions which he never said, and disgraces the said appearances by asking the reader what trust is to be given to such disputers. But what said the two appearances of the same Romanist? one appearance sayes that Dr. H. affirms no power of the Keyes was given especially to S. Peter. The other appearance sayes that hee confesses the Keyes were especially promised to S. Peter. He answers, the truth is, he neither said one, nor the other. One of the ap­pearances replies. The truth is, he said both. The first of Sch [...]sm p. 87. l. 2. 3. where he sayes expresly, that these, to wit, the Keyes, or the words importing them, are de­livered in common and equally to all & every of the eleven Apostles. Now I imagin'd that those words equally to all & every one is the very same, as particularly to no one. But Dr. H. thinkes otherwise. ( Answ. p. 62. l. 18 denying that he affirmed no power of the Keyes was given especially to S. Peter. And yet presently l. 21. 22. Saying that he af­ [...]rmed that the power was given in common, and equally to all the Apostles, which is so perfectly the self-same with [Page 393] the former as the very common light of nature teaches us, that they are both one, and that not especially, & com­monly, are perfectly equivalent. To omit that this very position: That no power of the Keyes was given espe­cially to S. Peter, is his own main nay sole tenet, he is de­fending in this place, which yet he sayes here, he affirms not, and complains of my foul play in disputing, for saying he holds his own tenet. The second position is found p. 57. l. 11. where he grants that this promise was ma­de to S. Peter peculiarly, and l. 21. where he sayes that the words importing a promise of the Keyes are applied parti­cularly to S. Peter, Now the applying those words is the speaking them, for they were not first spoken then after­ward apply'd. To S. Peter then this promise was spoken, that is, was made particularly or especially. As for his Evasion, that the former of these two last places is one­ly mention'd by him as a color the Romanist makes some use of, it hath no color at all from the place where it is found, or at least such a dim color as none but himself can discern.

Sect. 2.
A Promise of an higher degree of power and it's performance shown the Texts Mat. 16. and Iohn 21. connaturally and rationally explicated.

THese preparative rubs being past over, and Dr. H's three great faults of prevaricating, Iniuriousnes, and Calumny, with which he was charged, and went about to clear, still challenging him for their Author, next comes the point it self, since Dr. H. will needs put us upon the part of the Opponent.

Mr. H. undertooke to solve some places of Scripture which were used by our Doctors for S. Peter's Suprema­cy; where upon, I was obliged to undertake two things; [Page 394] first, that our Saviour promised the Keyes to S. Peter in particular, and after a particular manner, that is, the manner of promising them was particular in order to S. Peter. Secondly, that, it being worthy our Saviour to perform his promise after the manner & tenour in which he promised, consequently he performed that promise to S. Peter after a particular manner, that is, gave him the Keyes particularly, Schism Disarm'd p. 90. 91. urged the first place Matth. 16. v. 19. &c. which concerned the promise, And, though Dr. H pretends in the end of this Chapter, that he attends me in this Section [...] foot by foot, yet he gave it no such at [...]endance in order to ans­wering it but onely p. 60. 61. 62. he would needs engage me thence to confesse a point of my faith that is, that S. Peter had something, or some degree of power which the rest had not, that so he might clear himself from ha­ving calumniated our tenet. Since then I must be forc't to repeat again what I said there, I shall do it by arguing after this sort.

These words, I will give vnto thee the Keyes of the King­dome of Heaven, &c. importing a promise, were spoken to S. Peter after a particular manner, therefore the pro­mise was made to S Peter after a particular manner. The consequence is evident, for the promise was made by spea­king it; If then it were spoken to S. Peter after a particu­larizing way, the promise was made to S. Peter after a particular manner. The antecedent I prove thus, those words were spoken to S. Peter after a manner not compe­tible nor common to the rest of the Apostles; therefore they were spoken to S. Peter after a particularizing way. The consequence is most evident, since particular, is ex­presly the same with not common or not competible to the rest. The Antecedent is proved no lesse evidently from the whole Series of the Text; where we have first a particular Blessing of S. Peter, sprung from a particular [Page 395] act of his, to wit, his Confession of Christ's Divinity. Blessed art thou; his particular name, and, to avoyd all equivocation which might communicate that name▪ de­signing whose sonne he was, Simon Bar-Iona: my hea­venly father hath revealed it vnto th [...]e, in particular. Next follows Christ's applying his words in particular here upon, And I say vnto thee; then alluding to his particular name given him by Christ himself with an emphasis and energy, Thou ar [...] Peter (or a Rock) and upon this Rock will I build my Church, &c. And after all these particular designations follows the promise in the same tenour co­pulatively. And I will give vnto thee (still with the same speciality) the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, and what­soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Now, hence Iargue. The Confession of Christ to be the Son of God, the Blessing there-upon, The na­me Simon Bar-Iona, The designed allusion to that name, are not competible nor common to the rest of the Apo­stles; therefore, the promise-expressing words conco­mitant were spoken to S. Peter in a way not common, or competible to the rest of the Apostles. But (to returne whence wee came) these words are a promise of the Keyes, and their power; therefore a promise of the Keyes, and their power was made to S. Peter, after a manner not com­mon, that is particular, and that upon occasions origi­nally springing from, and constantly relating, and allu­ding to S. Peter's particular person and particular name. And thus much for the promise.

Next, as for the performance of this particular promise, wee argue thus. It is worthy our Saviour, not onely to perform his promise, but also to perform it after the man­ner, and tenour he promised. But he promised the power of the Keyes to S. Peter after a particular manner, (as hath been shown) [...]erefore he perfo [...]med his promise, [Page 396] and gave it to S. Peter after a particular manner, and con­sequently (which is the position wee vltimately aym at) S. Peter had the power of the Keyes after a more particu­lar manner then the other Apostles. The Major is evi­dent; because no man living would think himself reaso­nably dealt with if a promise were not performed to him after the manner it was made; nay, reason would think himself deluded, to have his expectation raised (as in pru­dence it would) by such a particular manner of promising to something extraordinary, and more then common, and, when it comes to the point, to have his hopes de­feated by a common, and meerly- equall performance. The Minor is already proved in the foregoing paragraph. The conclusion is the position in controversy.

Reason therefore informs us, supposing once that the promise was made to S. Peter after a particular manner that it should be performed to him after the same man­ner, nor need's it any other proof from Testimonies, if we once grant (as none will deny) that our B. Saviour did what was most reasonable, and fitting. Yet some of our Drs, arguing ad hominem against the Protestāt, make choice particularly of that place of Iohn 21. v. 15. 16. 17. to infer such a performance. I proceed therefore in the way I begun, and endeavour to show two things; first that reason gives it, secondly that the Scripture favours it, that this place signifies a particularity of performance to S. Peter, or a performance to him after a particular manner.

The first I prove ad hominem thus, the promise being made to S. Peter after a particular manner, and register'd in Scripture (as hath been shown) it is fitting that the correspōdent performance so worthy our Saviour should be exprest there likewise; especially in the Protestant Grounds who grant a kind of self-perfectnes and sole­sufficiency to Scripture. But, there is no other place in [Page 397] Scripture so apt to signify a particular performance as this (for the other places cited by Dr. H. Receive yee the Holy Ghost, & [...]s my father sent me so send I you, expresse onely a common performance) therefore in all reason wee should think that the particular performance is ex­prest there. The second I show thus, the particular pro­mise had preceeded, apt in it's own Nature to breed some greater expectation in S. Peter. These words were apt to satisfy that expectation; they signify'd therefore a par­ticular performance▪ Again, the thrice particularizing him by his name, and relation, Simon sonne of Ionas, denotes the speaking of the following words to him particularly. But the following words, pasce oves ineas, were apt, and sufficient to instate him in the Office, and give him the Authority of a Pastor: It was therefore given him in a par­ticular manner to be a Pastour in these words. The Ma­jor is e [...]ident, the Minor is proved. For, should any Master of a family bid one of his servants in the same words feed his sheep, that servant would think him self sufficiently Authorized to perform that duty. Thirdly, the word amas me plus his, Dost thow love me more than these, ma­nifestly put both a particularity, and a superiority in S. Pe­ter above the other Apostles in the interrogatory: The­refore, the inference there-upon; feed my Sheep, in or­dinary reason should signify after the same manner, and sounds as if it were put thus, Dost thow love me more then these, to which S. Peter assenting, our Saviour may be imagin'd by the naturall sence of the words to reply, If it be so that thou lovest me more then these, then feed my Sheep more then these; or, have thou a Commission to feed my Sheep more then these, sence he is more likely to per­form his duty better, and so more capable and worthy of a higher charge who bears a greater affection to his Master. This paraphrase the words them selves seem to ground. For otherwise to what purpose was it to make an [Page 398] interrogation concerning a greater degree of love? or, to what end was that particularizing, and perferring words [ more then these] put there if they had no correspondent influence nor connexion with the inference which ensves upon it. Fourthly, the verb pasce being exprest impe­ratively, and spoken by a lord to his servant, ought in all reason to signi [...]y a Command, unles the concomitant words in the Text force another sence upon it, which cannot be alledged here. Since then every command of a lawfull Superiour gives a Commission to do that which he commands, and that the words expressing this com­mand are most evidently by the circumstances in the Text, in a particular manner spoken to S. Peter, it follows that S. Peter had by them a particular Commission gi­ven him to feed Christ's flock, which is the thing to be proved.

Fifthly, the property of the word pasce, as it is distin­guished from praedicate shows that there was a kind of or­dinary care commanded to S. Peter, whereas by the pu­re Apostleship he and his fellows had but an extraordi­nary and (as it were) a voyager Authority; for, an Apo­stle might preach in many Cities; but, to be Pastor he must fix himself in one Citie because he could be but a particular Pastor: But, S. Peter having for his charge, oves & Agnos, that is, all the faithfull, [...]ould [...]ever be out of his own Iurisdiction, so that being still in his seat, he needed not fix any where; and, that he did so was [...] abundanti; Wherefore Praedicate being spoken in generall to all he Apostles▪ pasce, to S. Peter onely, & pasce ha­ving an especiall force above Praedicate it follows that so­mething was here given to S. Peter by that word, espe­cially and particularly.

This is, Reader, what I conceive follows gen [...]inly out of the Texts themselves, as explicable grammatically. Two things I desire both mine Adversary and thee to [Page 399] take notice of. The one, that we are not now disputing how the many-winded Commenters interpret this or that word; but what follows out of the acknowledg'd words of the Texts, as managed by Grammaticall skill. Nor do I pretend to Evidence out of my own interpretation (that is, Animating of dead words) neither my cau­se needs it, nor can my own reason suffer me to engage soe far, assuring me how seldome demonstrations are to bee expected from the tossing of meer words; My one­ly intent then (as I tould thee at first) was to show what I conceived most connaturally and probably follow'd out of these Texts, and their circumstances. Nor is it suffi­cient for mine Adversary to imagin that another explica­tion may be invented. But (since our contention now is, about what the words can-best bear) he is to show that another can so connaturally agree to the same particula­rizing circumstances in the said Texts. And, if any man living can draw an argument out of the same words, mo­re coherent with all the circumstances there found, and more connected in it self then mine is, nay from any other Text in Scripture, to show that S. Peter had no promise of the power of the Keyes made to him in a par­ticular manner, and no performance of that promise in the same manner, in which is founded his superiority to the other Apostles, I will candidly confesse my self to ha­ve the worst in this wit-combat, and shall lay down the cudgells for the next comer.

Sect. 3.
Dr. H's solutions or contrary explications of those two places of Scripture, sustain'd by most senceles paralogisms, and built onely upon his own sayings; nor shown nor attempted to bee shown more naturally consequent from the Texts themselves and their circumstances.

AGainst, this inference of mine from the words of these Texts Dr. H. never goes about to show from the force of the same words a more connaturall ex­plication, which is the onely method to show his advan­tage over us in Scripture; but, in stead thereof, endea­vours onely to enervate our deductions thence by some solutions gather'd here and there. Now, this method of proceeding had been allowable, in case we had built our faith upon such wit originiz'd explications; or, if in trying our acutenes with them in their own wordish way we had pretended to evidence or conclude demonstratively that this must be the sence of those places; for then indeed any may be otherwise, which they could imagin, would have destroy'd our must be so; and wee were bound in that case to maintain our explication against any other, not onely which the words might be pretended to favour, but what the most voluntary dreamer could fancy. But, since wee pretend not to evidence or conclude demonstratively thence, and onely intend to show out of the force of the words that our exposition is more probable, and conna­turall; he hath noe way to overcome in these circumstan­ces, but by showing us another out of the force of the same words more probable and connaturall; which since he never attempts to do (as far as I can see) 'tis plain he is so far from having acquitted him self in that point that he hath not so much as gone about it; and all the volun­tary [Page 401] solutions and possibilities of another explication he hath produced out of his owne f [...]cy without endeavoring to shew them more naturall out of the force of the Texts, are so little to the purpose, that they are not worth ans­wering. Yet wee shall glean them up from the places in which he hath scattered them, and give them, which is more then their due, a cursory reflection.

Solution 1. The words of the Commission were delivered in common to all the Apostles. Of Schism p 87. l. 2. Reply. The delivering them in common evinces no more but that each Apostle had the power of the Keyes; but, leaves it indifferent whether each had it equally or in equally▪ since it expresses neither; nor is there any so silly as not to see that mo [...]e persons may have the same thing yet one of those may have it in a more particular manner than the rest.

Now then, since wee have a place of Scripture expres­sing a promise of the Keyes in a particularising manner to S. Peter, how can the other places of a common deli­very prejudice the having them more especially; since it abstracts from having them equally, or inequally; and so is indifferent to and consistent with either.

Solution 2. They are delivered equally to all and every of the Apostles, as is evident by the plurall style throughout that Commission. Of Schism p 87. l. 2. 3. 4 5. Reply. To think that a bare plurality can prove; much less evidence an equality is such a peece of bedlam like non-sence that I wonder the silliest old wife should be gulld with such an affected peece of foolery. Paul's, and Pancras by this Logick must be equall, because they are both in the plu­rall call'd Churches; nay every peece of the world's fra­me is a mani [...]est instance a [...]a [...]nst this paralogism; since in every species in Nature the particulars or individualls are plurally styled by the same word, and agree in the same generall notion, though there be hundreds, sometimes [Page 402] thousand degrees of inequality between them. Yet this infinitely weake reasoner hath (as I dare undertake to show) above fourty times made this argument against us; and to surpasse his otherwise unparaleld'self, he calls it an evidence. Were it not pretty to put some parallels to this peece of Logick, and make Dr. H. argue thus. Con­stables and Kings are in the plurall styled Magistrates. ergo (cryes the Dr.) it is evident they are both equall; A Captaine and a Generall are both plurally styld Com­manders; ergo (concludes the Dr.) it is evident they are equally such. The like argument he hath made hereto­fore for the equality of Apostles, pillars, foundation-sto­nes, &c. because all of each sort were named by one plu­rall name. Pardon me then Reader if I have given such a harsh character to this monstrous peece of Logick I professe I know not what better name to call it by truly; and, besides other considerations, I cannot but resent it in the behalf of man's nature Which is Reason, and am angry with Dr. H. in his owne behalf that he hath by his passion, and interest so totally defaced it in him self as to produce that for an evidence which is so far from the least degree of probability that it is the greatest im­possibility imaginable. But especially, when I see that the same person who acknowledges Schism greater then sa­criledge, or idolat [...]y, would persuade rationall Souls in­to it by such putid non-sence, I confesse, I cannot con­tain my expressions from taking such liberties, as truth and Iustice make lawfull, but the concernement of my cause necessary.

Solution 3. Each single Apostle had this power as distinct­ly promised to him as S. Peter is pretended to have, and the words of Scripture, Math. 18. v. 18. are most clear for that purpose. Of Schism p. 88. Reply, there is not a word the­re expressing any distinction in order to any other Apo­stle, much lesse singularizing each of them distinctly as [Page 403] you here pretend but a common and plurall donation one­ly whatsoever you shall binde, &c. and, as for your Syl­logism by which you would evade the shamelesnes of this assertion Answ. p. 66. by saying that you mean't onely the Apostles were each of them singly to have and exercise the power of the Keyes, and not all together in com­mon, or joyn'd together in Communion; first, neither agrees with your other words, for it is one thing to say each could distinctly use that power, another thing to say as you ( of Schism p. 8 [...]. l. 13. 14.) this power was distinct­ly promised to each of them, and then quoting, Math. 18. v. 18. as most clear for that purpose where nothing is found but a cōmon expression whatsoever yee shall binde on earth shall be bound in heaven, &c. without any distinction at all exprest. Nor can such a pretended meaning stand with common sense, unles the Dr. will confesse him self to ha­ve calumniated our tenet, which imputation he hath be­fore taken such pains to avoid; for either it is put in op­position to us, or not; if not, what does it there, or to what end are all those testimonies brought of Schism p. 89 to second it? If it be put in opposition to us, and yet mean onely (as Dr. H. says here) that it was promised to all the Apostles as to twelve single persons each singly to have and exercise it, and not all together in common; then our tenet must necessarily be supposed and pretended by him to be, that no single Apostle could bind or loose, but all of them together in common onely which is so manifest a calumny that himself dares not openly own it, though he slily impose it; as he did the other about the Keyes being S. Peter's inclosure. Yet it is as necessarily his, as the excuse given is his; which if he disclame he acknow­ledges the objected fault.

Solution 4. The addressing the speech to S. Peter in the singular is a token onely that Peter as a single person should have power, but not, either that no others should have it too [Page 404] (observe Reader how the calumny he formerly would have acquitted himself of, still sticks to him) or that the manner in which S. Peter should have it should be singular to him, and so as it was not to each of them, Answ. p. 64. 65 Reply, this is onely your own saying; show us out of the words themselves that this is more probable, as I show'd the contrary, and then I shall acknowledge that you have animated the dead letter more artificially then I; otherwise you have done nothing: for the question is not whether you can say so, or no; but whether the words oblige you to say so.

Solution 5. The particularity, gives him particularly the power, but excludes not others from the same power and the same degree of power. Answ. p. 65. Reply. This is onely said again, not shown that the words gave occasion to say it, which was onely to be done. He quotes indeed drily the places of Scripture, yet puts down no words, as his custome is, but talks before and after the barren and unapply'd citations what he pleases. Wee take the words of the Text, debate them minutely and particular­ly, and bring them home to the point, to show that our tenet of a more particular powre is more probable out of their native force. Let him do the like and show by the same method his explication more connaturall then mi­ne and I shall grant he won the field in this probability-skirmish. Himself will not deny that S. Peter had as much promis'd him as the rest when it was promis'd in com­mon, Math. 18. v. 18. The having then over and above this common promise at another distinct time and with most particularizing and distinguishing circumstances a promise of he same Keyes; most manifestly is a priviled­ge peculiar to S. Peter, and that on which wee ground the probability of having them promis'd in a particular manner, and consequently performed in the same sort; which wee make accoūt wee find with the like particularities [Page 405] Io. 21. Let the Reader then observe what countenan­ce the words, Grammatically & prudentially scann'd, give to our explications and deductions, and expect what other explication, so well circumstanc'd, Dr. H. can de­duce of the same words taken in their own native force and energy, not what he will say upon his owne head.

Solution 7. The speciall energy of the applying the words particularly to S. Peter, concludes that the Ecclesiasticall po­wer of aeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house belongs to sin­gle persons, such as S. Peter was, and not onely to Consisto­ries, or Assemblies. Of Schism p. 87. Reply. This is still your own saying without ever endeavoring to show from the words, and their circūstances, they persuade that this is the sense of them. But, let it be so that you have evinc't against the Presbyterians from this place that a commu­nity must not govern but a Bishop, that is, one who is Superiour to that community; who sees not how much better, and more probably it follows hence that S. Pe­ter was Superior to the consistory of the Apostles (they being present when those particularizing words were spo­ken, whence Dr. H. proves the Episcopall Authority over the consistory) then it will follow that in succeeding times, and distinct circumstances, some one should be chief and over the Assembly. Again, the words not being expresse for his position, he can onely make a parallell deduction thence after this sort, if he will argue from the words, that the same should be observed in a Bishop and his consistory afterwards, which was I deated in this first consistory of the Apostles; wherefore, since Dr. H. grants no higher degree of Authority in S. Peter than in the rest of the Apostles, he can conclude no more but this, that the Presbyters are all equall in Authority, as the Apostles were; that is, there ought to bee no more-highly-authoriz'd Bishop over them, but onely that one of those equally-dignify'd Presbyters ought to sit, talk, [Page 406] or walk before the rest, according to Dr. H's explica­tion of the [...], by Primacy of order. Thus whi­les the Dr. disputes from this place against the Presby­tery, he falls into Popery. As for what he tells me here that it is the interest of S. W. as well as of the Protestants to mantain this point against the Presbyterians who a lone can gain by the questioning it. I answer, that I love the Pre­sbyterians so well as not to wish them renounce their rea­son, that is, man's nature, which they must doe if they assent to what the Protestants say upon a probability one­ly, nay a totally improbable, and rather opposit Text. Nor should I wish them so much hurt, as to beleeve Episcopacy, unles I made account the Catholick Church was able to give them rigorously convincing evidence for her Authority asserting it, which is impossible the Pro­testants should do, unles they plow with our heifer, and recur to our Rules of faith, universall Tradition, so oft re­nounc'd by them for other points.

Observe, Reader, that I had shown his explication of this place of Scripture against the Presbyterians to ma­ke unavoidably against thim self, Schism Disarm'd p. 95. In reply to which dangerous point ( Answ. p. 66▪ par. 16.) he onely calls my reasons expressions of dislike to his argu­ment against Presbytery, that it is not pertinent to the que­stion, that it hath not (as he supposes) any show of the least di [...]ficulty in it and so ends. As if my showing that our te­net follows more naturally out of the words, even as ex­plicated thus by him self, were onely an expression of dis­like, impertinent to our question, or had not, if proved, any show of the least difficulty in it; yet he braggs at the end of this Section, that he hath attended me precisely and [...] step by step, though he makes when he spies danger such large skips over me.

Solution 8. The words, feed my Sheep, are nothing but an [...]xhortation to discharge that duty to which he was befor [...] [Page 407] commissionated. Rep. p. 68. par. 10. p. 63. Reply, had he ever a particular Commission given him, correspondent to the particularizing promise, but here? or was not the word pasce spoken imperatively by a Master to his servant as apt to signify a Commission as the words, Goe teach all Nations, were? how then appears it from the words that this was onely an exortation? and, if it does not, what is it more then Dr. H's own saying?

Solution 9 The circumstances in the Text can never work a change in the matter, an inculcated, expresse, particula­riz'd explication, introduc'd with a question to quicken, and impresse it can never be converted by these accumulation [...] in­to a Commission for supremacy. Answ. p. 63. Reply, first you must show that the words persuade it was onely an Exhortation; else all this and your following discourse falls to the ground. Next, such particularizing circumstan­ces to S. Peter in the presence of the rest are apt in their owne nature to make him or any man living ready to apprehend that the thing promised belonged to him in a particular manner: els to what end serv'd they, would no [...] a common promise have sufficed if this had not been intended? Thirdly, there needed no converting the signi­fication of the pasce from an Exhortation into a Commis­sion of Supremacy. The word was apt before of it self to signify a Commission; the accumulation of particularizing circumstances gave it to signify a particular Commission. Let the reader examin Dr. H. by what force of the words he proves t'is an exhortation onely, since the words them­selves are words of Commission, there being nothing pro­per to a meer exhortation in them. And as for the Drs parallell here that ( Christ's praying the same prayer thrice did not make it cease to be a prayer and commence a precept, t's soe silly as a sillier cannot be imagin'd; since neither the words of Christ's prayer are apt to be converted from a praying to a commanding signification; nor was it li­kely [Page 408] or possible that Christ should impose precepts upon his heavenly father to whom he pray'd, as he could upon S. Peter, not lastly is it onely the thrice saying that wee build upon, as abstracted from all the other particulari­sing circumstances but the thrice saying a precept, and a precept thus exprest.

Solution 10. The asking him thri [...]e, lovest thou me, ma­de S. Peter no doubt deem it a reproach of his thrice denying his Master. Answ. p. 63. The Text saith, Peter was gree­ved, because he said vnto him the third time, Lovest thou me, which Sure he would not have been, if he had looked on it as an introduction to so great a preferment. Reply: Dr. H. hath here at unawares bewray'd what kinde of Spirit he is of; who makes account that the getting some great pre­ferment is a ground of more gladnes then our Saviours seeming to doubt of his love to him would be occasion of sorrow. But he shall give me and all good Christians [...]eave to think that good S. Peter was of another temper; and that he valued the good opinion of his Master, que­stioning so much his love to him, above the attainment of any dignity imaginable. Though I must confesse Dr. H's Noe doubt, and Sure, upon which all depends, are two sure cards, were they authoris'd by any thing besides his own words; and, 'tis a very competent answer with him to say he is sure, and there is no doubt but that S. Peter gap't so much after a preferment that he car'd not, in compari­son of it, what opinion his B. Master had of him, in or­der to his loving him.

Again, how do the words soe put it beyond all doubt that the asking him thrice, lovest thou mee, was deemed by S. Peter a reproach of his thrice deniall; whereas the Text tells us that S. Peter was fully persuaded of his Ma­sters knowledge of his love, and confidently appeal'd to that knowledge, Lord thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee. Nor have wee any ground to think that [Page 409] S. Peter apprehended his sweet Master so cruell as to up­braid a forgiven sin, especially seeing the return of so much love in the breast of his dear Disciple. If Dr. H. pre­tend that it was to excite in him a greater care of Christ's flok, the words indeed give countenance to it. But then it should be ask'd what necessity was there of exciting a greater care in S. Peter in particular? had he shown him self of soe negligent a nature as to give occasion of doubt that he was not likely without this exciration to perform well this particular charge? or rather, did not his whole carriage demonstrate the quite contrary that he was ever most zealous, vehement, and hot to prosecute any thing he went about? What reason then there could be of a particular incitement to S. Peter to perform and look well to his charge, more than to the rest without some parti­cularity in his charge more than in the rest, passes reason to imagin▪ The force therefore in this thrice repetition of lovest thou me in all probability and according to the words rationally explicated, wee make to bee this; that since it is ever the method of God's sweet providence to dispose and fit the person for the charge, ere he imposes the charge it self, and the best disposition to perform any charge with exact diligence is a greater affection towards the person who imposes it, our Saviour, by asking S. Pe [...]ter thrice in that tender manner lovest thou me more then these, lovest thou me, excited and stirred up in him a grea­ter affection, both to dispose him at present for the par­ticularly-exprest charge of feeding his Sheep, and also to minde him for the future upon what terms and condi­tions, and with what dear and tender expressions he had pledged vnto him the care of his flock. This explication, I say, of that thrice asking wee think most connaturall and consonant to the Text, as rationally scann'd accor­ding to what is most befitting the divine wisedom; by which rule or any other principle had Dr. H. guided him­self [Page 410] in stead of recurring to and relying upon meerly his owne fancy for his voluntary explications, I hope he would have been of the same minde too.

Solution 11. Wee need seek no other performance of this promise than that which was at once afforded all the Apostles together. As, suppose a Generall should promise a Commis­sion this day to one, and to morowe should make the like pro­mise to Eleven more, that one being in their company, and then, upon a set day some weeks after, should se [...] twelve Commissions to those twelve, one for each of them, I wonder who would doubt of the exact performance of this promise to that first, or seek for any more speciall performance of it Reply p. 67. Reply: Dr. H. pretends a parallell, and yet▪ leaves all that in which the force of the parallell was to be put, taking the common and indifferent circumstance onely. First he puts the supposition that a Generall should promise a Commission this day to one, but he omits all that in which wee place the strength of our argument, to wit, that the Generall should promise the said Commission to that one in a manner of expression not competent or compe­tible to the rest, as he did here, sounding an advantage over the rest in his desert, his confessing of Christ's Godhead by the revelation of his heavenly father; with such allusion [...] to his name, and other particularisations, as in all prudence are apt to breed an expectation of something particular in the thing promised. He should have made his Gene­rall have promist a Commission to one in this manner, and then the answer had been, that that one man so ma­nifoldly particulariz'd, and, as it were, call'd and singled out from the rest in their owne presence, had no reason to think himself ingenuously deal't with, if his acknow­led'g desert being particular, and the promise there upon so particularly directed to him, and him alone at that ti­me, he had received an equall Commission onely, that is, such a one as was common to all the by standers, and not [Page 411] particular at all to himself. Next, Dr. H's following words, suppose this Generall should to morrow make the like pro­mise to eleven more, that one being in their company, hath two equivocations in it; the one in the words, the like promise; by which if he means the promise of the same common thing, to wit the power of the Keyes, t'is gran­ted; but, if he mean's (as he ought, this being the thing in controversy, and the sence best suting with that word) that the like promise denotes a promise made after th [...] sa­me manner, and apt to breed no more nor higher expe­ctation of the thing to be given then if it had been exprest [...] common onely then 'tis palpably false and flatly deny'd. The next equivocation lies in these words, suppose he should make a promise to eleven more▪ that one being in their company; by which one would think that S. Peter who had it promised particularly before, had it not promised again in common now, but onely stood by at this time while it was promis'd to the other eleven. By which devi­ce he hath avoided another point in which wee put force, and left it out in his parallell; and '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 preferr'd before them in this priviledge, that, over and above his common promise, hee had a promise made to him at other times particularly and in a particularizing manner, so that the Drs similitude hath not so much as one foot left to hop on, that is, it resembles no part of the point as it is in question betveen us, nor touches at all the controverted difficulty, and is all one as if, going about to paint Cesar, he should draw onely the rude li­neaments common to all mankind, and omit all the par­ticular proportions and colours which were proper to delineate that person. But the Dr. makes up his similitu­de by supposing twelve Commissions sent to the twelve Captains, in which he would subtly have his Reader [Page 412] suppose the Commissions were equally; for, if they we­re unequall it would prove iust contrary to his pretence. But what he mean's by his seal'd Commissions, or how he thinks this is verified in the Apostles, wee shall ere long discusse when he declares his meaning in it.

Dr. H's parallell having thus lamely play'd it's part, let me see if I can make another more pat, and expres­se then his was. Suppose then the late King of England, as head of the Church there, could have made, and had been to create Bishops all over England; and had alrea­dy cast his eye particularly upon some one particular per­son so far as to give him in particular the sir name of Bis­hop (as he did S. Peter the name Cephas, a Rock) this done, upon occasion of a particular service of his first ac­nowledging or confessing him King (which wee may sup­pose not to have been then acknowledged) he breaks out into those parallell expressions. Happy art thou N. N. who, when others weakly doubt of my Royalty dost out of a particular affection to me acknowledg me King; and I say vnto thee, Thou art Bishop, and upon this Bishop I wil build the Church of England, and thus built it shall stand strong against all opposition; and J will give vnto thee the power of binding & loosing and whatsoever fault against our Ecclesiasticall laws, thou shalt absolve from, I will hold that person thus absolved guiltles; and whatsoever thou shalt re­fuse to pardon, I will hold it unpardon'd likewise. Now I appeal to Dr. H's cōscience whether this person he would not in prudence judge by this carriage that he should ha­ve some thing particualr given him, and whether though the King afterwards, in a common exposition, had pro­mis't to make him, aud the rest Bishops, yet there would not remain still imprinted in his minde an expecta­tion that he should be a Bishop in a higher degree then the rest; to wit, an Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or Yor­ke? since I think it as plain in prudence that such a carria­ge, [Page 413] and such expressions should breed such an expecta­tion, as most prudentiall actions use ordinarily to bee. Therefore, it was worthy our Saviour not to delude the expectation of S. Peter iustly, rationally and prudently raised by his particularizing carriage, and expressions to higher hopes; Therefore, he satisfy'd it with a propor­tionable performance; therefore S. Peter had in higher manner and degree the power of the Keyes than the rest of the Apostles, which is the thing to bee evinced.

And thus ends this wit-combat between me, and Dr. H. in which, I hope, I have performed fully my taks, which was to shew out of the very words in the Text that they sound in all probability and likelihood more favorably to my advantage. And, if Dr. H. goes about to answer me, let him show out of those very words, p [...]udentially scann'd, that they persuade another interpretation, and not tell us of his own fancy what he is able to imagin, as he does here all over. Nor let him thinke t'is sufficient to solve my deductions by showing them not to spring from tho­se words by rigorous evidence. For, first, this is to oppo­se that which was never pretended; for, I pretend not to evidence by my private wit working upon pliable natur'd words: a greater probability is pretended from the letter of the Text as it lies; how he will impugn this but by showing his more probable from the letter of the same Text I confesse I know not. Next, to fancy an explica­tion which the words themselves persuade not, and so to solve my probable deduction, because another is possible in it self is very disallowable, and unreasonable; because a meer possibility of another, destroy's not the probability of this▪ onely a greater, or equall probability pretended, can frustrate a greater probability presumed, where the Grounds of controverting exceed not probability. And-lastly, to think to prejudice our tenet or faith even by sol­ving those places thus interpreted by privates skill, is the [Page 414] weakest errour of all; since neither our faith nor my self as one of the faithfull, rely at all upon any place of Scri­pture, as thus interpreted. This conceit therefore is noe wiser than if a man should thinke to throw mee down, or disable me from walking by taking away my stilts, and yet leaving me my leggs whereas I stand a thousand times more firm upon these, than I did upon the former. And I so totally build my faith upon the sence of the Church, so litle upon places of Scripture play'd upon by wit, that what Dr. H. ob ects, and thinks me in chanted for holding it. ( Answ. p. 64.) I freely, and ingenuously confesse, to wit, that the infallibility of our Church, consisting in this that she acknowledges no rule of faith save immediate attestation of forefathers, would equal­ly have done it, and equally have ascertain'd me that S. Peter was cheef of the Apostles, as if our Saviour had ne­ver asked S. Peter three times, lovest thou me? Although, in other respects, I doubt not but that these sacred Ora­cles of the written word are both a great confort, and ornament to the Church, and very usefull to our Do­ctors; yet not to hammer or coine a faith out of them by the dints and impressions of wit, as the Protestants imagin.