SECT. 1.

HIS first Chapter is most of it a good Sermonlike preparative to his ensuing Theme. Who would not think he intended to treat the question in ear­nest, seeing him begin with so serious a Preamble? In the first five Paragraphs there is not a word concer­ning our question to be taken notice of in qua­lity of a difficulty, being nothing but a moral [Page 2] Preface, indifferent to either side. Only I de­sire by way of Memorandum, that we may reflect well upon, and bear in mind that vertue of rea­dy and filial obedience of those under authority, to Cap. 1. Sect. 4. their lawfully authorized Superiors; mentioned by him, and extolled for a vertue of the first magnitude. And the indifferent Reader will a [...] once both easily discern hereafter, whether the present Catholicks, who hear the Church, and believe her in her Lawfully authoriz'd Governors, or the first Reformers, who without any, and a­gainst all Authority, disobeyed and disbeliev­ed her, have the better title to that eminent ver­tue; and he will also wonder why the Doctor should face his Book with the Encomiums of that Vertue, the bare explication whereof apply­ed to the carriage of the first Reformers, must manifestly condemn them, and quite confute and disgrace all Doctor Hammonds laborious en­deavours.

But a pretence to a vertue, if confidently carried on, seems to the vulgar an argument of a just claim; and high commendations of it makes the pretence more credible: For who willingly praises, but what is either his own or his friends, or dispraises but what is his ene­mies. Which makes him in the next three Pa­ragraphs, proceed in the same tenor of Rheto­rick, and from Scriptures and Fathers, paint [...]ut the horrid vice of Schism in her own ugly shape, as that it is carnality, self-condemning, contrary to cha­rity, Cap. 1 Sect. 6, 7. 8 bereaving one of the benefits of prayers and Sa­craments; as bad as, and the foundation of all here­sies; that there is scarce any crime, (the place cited is absolute, that there is not any crime, though he mince it with scarce) so great as Schisme; not [Page 3] Sacriledg, Idolatry, Parracide, that it is obnoxious to peculiar marks of Gods indignation, Antichristi­anism, worshiping or serving the Devil; not expia­ble by martyrdom; it being according to Iraen [...]s, impossible (though the Dr. mitigates the dange­rous expression with, very hard, if not impossible) to receive such an injury or provocation from the Go­vernors of the Church, as may make a separation ex­cusable. And lastly, impossible, according to St. Au­stin, that there should be any just cause for any to se­parate from the Catholick Church. Instead of which last words, the Doctor, full of jealousies and fears, puts, the Church truely Catholick, as if there were much danger, lest perhaps any should imagin Christs Church (of which I conceive St. Austin meant it) to be untruly Catholick.

And now, what good, honest, well-minded Reader, not much acquainted with the Doctors manner of Rhetorick, would be so unconscion­able as to think him guilty of that vice, which he so candidly and largely sets forth in its own colours; although in those expressions which might too directly prejudice his future work, he seems something chary. And indeed, I won­der for whose sake he hath gathered such a bun­dle of severe rods out of the sacred Scriptures and the best Fathers, to whip Schismaticks. Such expressions as I hope will strongly incite the Protestant Reader, whom a true care of his eter­nal good, may invite to seek satisfaction in this point, seriously to consider, that the decision of no one controversie is more nearly concerning his salvation, than this; as appears by the abo­minable character of Schisme, which the Doctor hath with so much pains deciphered to be an Abridgement of all the most hainons, damnable, [Page 4] inexcusable, unexpiable vices that can be na­med or imagin'd. Of which Augaean stable, if Mr. Hammond can purge the Protestant Church, he shall ever wear the most deserved title of the Reformers Hercules. But I am sorry to foresee that the more he handles his work, the more the dirt will remain sticking upon his own fingers.

He proceeds, or rather infers from the for­mer C. 1. S. 9. Premises, an irrefragable Conclusion (as he cal [...] it, that the examination of the occasion, cause or mo­tive of any mans Schism is not worth the produ­cing or heeding in this matter. This (besides the manifest advantage it gives us, of which here­after) is the pre [...]tiest fetch to wave the whole question, and whatsoever is material in it, that I ever met with. That you are excommunica­ted, or separated from the Communion of our Church (whence, as you say, the Schisme springs) all the world sees and acknowledges: What remains then to justifie or condemn you or us, but that there was or was not, sufficient cause to cast you out, and deny you Communion: For, that our Church had authority to do it, if you be found to deserve it, being then her subjects or children, none doubts. If then there were no cause, our Church was tyrannical: If there were, you are truely and properly Schismaticks; first, in giving just cause of your own ejection; next, in remaining out of our Church still, and not removing those impedi­ments which obstruct your return.

This is most evidently the very point of the S. 9. difficulty; which, being in great haste, to shor­ten your method, you would totally decline. Make what haste you please, so you take the question along with you: For, assure your self, however [Page 5] you would avoid it now, you cannot possibly treat it without examining the causes and mo­tives of breaking, as de facto you do afterwards. Although, if you can evidence that there is actu­ally no Schisme made between us, then indeed I must confess there can be no need of examin­ing the causes of a thing that is not: But it is impossible to make this seem evident, without putting out ours, your own, and the whole worlds eyes.

But you desire only that the truth of the matter S. 9▪ of fact be lookt into, whether the charge of Schisme be sufficiently proved, &c. It is proved, Mr. Doctor, if you be proved to have so misbehaved your selves within the Church, that, to conserve he Government inviolate, she was forced to our­law you from her Communion. These are the motives and causes, which you (conscious of, and very tenderly sensible in those parts) would have us leave untouch'd. But on this we shall insist more at large when the very handling the question forces you, though unwilling, to touch the occasions or causes of Schisme; at least such as you thought fit, and seem'd most plausibly answerable by the notes you had glean'd up and down to that purpose.

SECT: 2▪

HIs second Chapter begins with the distin­ction of Heresie and Schisme; concerning which, what he hath said is true, but yet he hath omitted some part of the truth which was necessary to be told. Wherefore let him but take along with him, that not only Schisme is a dissenting from Authority, and Heresie, an intro­ducing a false doctrine into the Church; but also C. 2. S. 1. that all heresie (which it concerns his cause to be willing to pretermit) must necessarily in­clude Schisme, and we shall not fall out about this point: For [...] signifying electio, that is, a chusing to onesself some private opinion con­trary to the commonly▪ received Doctrine of the Church, it follows, that by every Heresie the Church is truely wounded and rent asunder, the proper effect of Schisme. So that, to con­serve her self in her primogenial integrity, when shee sees that pertinacity hath throughly and irrecoverably corrupted such a member, she is obliged even in charity, as well as justice to cut it off, ne pars sincer a trahatur.

His next Observation is an Eagle ey'd Criti­cisme about the passive vetb [...], which he [...]. 2: [...]. 2. will have to signifie reciprocal action, and passion from and upon himself, and to answer to the He­brew Hithpael; which he tels you, he could large­ly [Page 7] exemplifie in the use of other words. But first, if we may have leave to criticize upon so acute a Critick, since it is only for want of conjugations (as he saies) designed to supply the place of the He­brew Hithpael; how knows he it must necessa­rily supply that place here? since [...], and its fellows coming from perfect actives, must in the first place have a signification perfectly pas­sive; and so, only for want of Conjugations, be translated upon occasion to signifie the neutro­passive. So that all the Doctors Criticisme (at the best) is come to this, that the Verbe [...] may be capable of such a signification, in which (though the word did not force it) he was pleased without any end or necessity, but only to shew his art, to take it at this time. Se­condly, though in the Hebrew Language the Voyces and Conjugations be jumbled, and there­fore the Grammarians admit there eight Con­jugations, whereas in reality there is but one, and rather eight Votes, as the said Grammari­ans affirm; yet it is certain and evident to eve­ry School-boy, that in the Latine and Greek Tongues, Voyces and Conjugations are things distinct, and of a farr different nature. The former alluding chiefly to the sence and significa­tion of the word; as appears in our active, pas­sive, &c. the latter being taken from some di­versitie in the letters of the word; which in the Greek is the characteristical letter, in the Latine, some long or short, letter or syllable correspon­dent, and fit to cause, by a constantly-divers manner of varying a distinction in the Conjugati­on. Now comes this Doctor of new Grammar, who hath quite forgot his accidence, and tels us, a passive verbe must have a neuter signification for [Page 8] want of Conjugations; as if vapulo and amo could not be of the same conjugation, and yet have a different sence, the one signifying actively, the other neutrally. Thirdly, if Conjugations will do the deed, that is, make the Verb [...] sig­nifie neutrally, I see no reason why the Dr. should complain for want of Conjugations in the Greek Language, there being, more there than in He­brew. Fourthly, whereas he saith this nice kind of signification is fully exprest by the Latine neutrals, which partake both of active and passive, but are strictly neither; I conceive the instances of such verbs, as sto and ardeo will best fit his purpose; the former signifying either, I stand, or, I am standing: the latter, I burn, or, I am burning: and then he need not have run so farre as Hithpael, since the first Conjugation Kal, more properly challenges such kind of absolute or intransitive verbs, as appears by [...] stetit, which is of that Conjugation. Fifthly, our Latine neutrals, as such, do not signify reciprocal action or passion fr [...]om and on himself, though the Dr. saies they ful­ly expresse it; for we say, Roma ardet, and yet af­firm also that the action of that burning came from Nero, and use not to blame Rome that it burnt it self. Sixthly, the Hebrew Hithpael, when it▪ is not coincident with Kal, or Niphal, (as sometimes it is) signifies an express action upon it self, as fully as two words in Latine or Greek can render it; insomuch as [...] expresse, as perfectly, he delivered over himself, as in Greek is denoted by [...], or in Latine by tradidit seipsum; and then I would know where the Doctor, among all his critical observations, can shew me one Verb in all the La­tine or Greek Language to parallel it, or (as the [Page 9] Doctor expresses it) that is of the nature of Hith­pael. Seventhly, either he meant his Criticisme of the verbal [...] (which seems more likely, it being the word in question) or of the verb [...]; if, of the former, it is most evident to any man that ever saluted Greek, à limine, that those verbals signifie a thing done, in a sence as perfectly passive as can be imagined, without re­lating at all to the person, or any the least inti­mation whether the action, which inferr'd that passion, were performed by himself or some o­thers; as appears by [...], &c. which denote a work done, an Ordinance constituted, with­out reference to the person that wrought or or­dained it. The self-same is visible in our present verbal [...], which signifies a rupture made; for which reason St. Pauls words; [...], 1 Cor▪ 11: 18: are rendred in the Latin transla­tion, Audio scissuras in vobis esse; which scissure or rupture signifies most perfectly a division made, passively; not, as the Doctor would have it, a reciprocal action or passion from and on himself; since a rupture is equally called a rupture, whoe­ver it be that makes it. But if the Doctor means the Verb [...] ▪ then I desire to know where he reads that passives in [...] forming verbals in [...], are used in his sence upon the account of being such passives. Indeed it may happen, and does often, that a Verb in [...] hath a neuter signification, and consequently is used in a neu­ter sence; but that [...], a Verb perfectly pas­sive, coming from a perfect active (and conse­quently that all passive Greek verbs) should be observable to be of the nature (as he saies) of the Hebrew Hithpael, is such an observation as none could ever before discern but Doctor Hammond; [Page 10] who, both here, and all over his Book, by much hending his sight, creates objects at pleasure, o [...] else by an extraordinary faculty sees things tha [...] are not; no not even so much as in their cause [...] Lastly, whereas the word was out of controver­sie between us, and good enough before he med­led with it, he has made it by his unnecessary scruing it, speak perfect nonsence; as is ma­nifest by the plain link of consequences which evidently follow out of the nice sence, which maugre all Grammar, he will needs give it. Fo [...] (that I may be allowed to speak rigorously and critically when I am examining a Criticisme) if it signifie reciprocal action or passion, it must sig­nifie an act of dividing, exercised upon himself who therefore is the thing divided; and since, di­visio est motus ab unitate ad pluralitatem; division i [...] a progress or motion from unity to plurality, its pro­per and formal effect is to make that which it works upon more of one; but that which it works upon (saith the Doctor) is himself the Schisma­tick; therefore it cuts the Schismatick in two, and either kils or mangles him, as the Critick pleases. See to what a pittifull case the Doctors acuteness hath brought a poor Schismatick, from the too quaint notation of the killing let­ter of the Hithpael-like verb [...]!

I crave the Readers pardon for transgressing so long upon his patience to lay open a foolery; but I did it to the intent Mr. Dr. and his friends may see how ridiculous, and sometimes unsecure a thing it is to stand shewing ones skill in Gram­mar, or letting the world see they understand a little Greek and Hebrew, or interlarding their discourse with so many scraps of exotick lan­guages to amuse the vulgar; and in the mean [Page 11] time very little, and very weakly to close with their adversary in the point in controversie with rigorous discourses, solid, pregnant, and convincing reasons, only which (and not Greek and Criticisms) are expected in so grave, and concerning a Treatise. But the former imper­tinences, with sayings indifferent to both parts, intermingled with some few glean'd citations, and blind stories, sawced with some pretty ex­pressions, sugar'd over with Scripture-phrase, and then dish'd up handsomly with the help of a learned distinction, will serve to make up se­veral paragraphs; Paragraphs, Chapters; Chap­ters, a Book: Iamque opus exegi, &c. and the work is done, which if none thinks worth the pains of a reply (all the substantial part being already confuted an hundred times over, and only the cooking it up changed) presently with the loudest Trumpet of Fame it is proclaimed unanswerable (as this book hath been) and hath a solemn triumph sounded in its behalf, where­as only its contemptibleness made it victori­ous.

But to proceed; all he concludes from his C. 2: S. 2: Criticism is this, that Schisme is a voluntary recessi­on from the Church: and might not plain sence have told us this without critically straining and spoiling a word to prove it from Grammar? For, what man in his wits could possibly ima­gin, Schisme being such an horrid sinne, that one might perhaps fall into it, whether he would or no, and so become a Schismatick against his will. There needs neither Greek nor Hebrew to understand this: Every child knows by the very first principles of Nature that no man sins, if he cannot help it. Yet Mr. Hammond goes on [Page 12] a whole leaf, and with most potent Argument [...] overthrows that which would fall of it self (like him that all-to-be-bang'd the dead Bear) not the least hair of an objection bristling it self against him to fright him from his Conquest. He main­tains therefore that the actual Excommunicati­on used by the Governors of the Church, is not the crime of Schisme; as if he should go about to prove that the sentence of a Judge, when he condemns a murderer or a thief, is neither the sin of murder nor the every. For Excommunica­tion (as all men know) is the Churches con­demnation or punishment of the crime of Schisme, as the Iudges last sentence of death is of the aforesaid delinquencies. Who will not grant him this at the first word? yet never­theless he will needs prove it with many.

But Governors (you say) being men, may possibly erre, and so censure and excommunicate the innocent. [...]. 2. [...]. 3. If what you say here, may be, you prove to have been, I shall grant you have acquitted your self well. In the mean time what onely may be, may also not be; and till such time as you can evi­dence an immunity from error in the governed, as well as pretend a liableness in the Governors, the whole oeconomy of the world gives it, that the opinion of right shall stand on the Governors side: For surely, the order of the Politick World were a very pitiful slack thing, if every frivolous and probable exception of Subjects, should be held a sufficient cause to break asun­der the well compacted Frame, and dissolve the strongest Nerves of a long-setled Govern­ment; even in may-be's, then you are worsted: What will become of you when we come to demonstrate to you hereafter, that however in [Page 13] some private proofs of a particular fact, the Governors may be mistaken, yet in such publick misbehavior, as your few new-fangled Prede­cessors used, when they opposed themselves to the ever-self-constant Church, it was impossible the Governors should be mistaken in judging you to be truly-named Schismaticks, and con­sequently did well in treating you accordingly.

That there may be a continuance out of actual C. 2. S. 2, 3, 4. Communion without Schism, as also, That unjust Excommunication hurts no man, would have been granted you for one word in plain English, without the citing of so much Greek to so little purpose. Onely we desire you would grant us in recompence, what in all reason is due, That a voluntary continuance in a just Excommunication, makes the thus excommunicated Schismaticks. Which part of the distinction being counter­pois'd to those others you mentioned, of actual continuance out of the Church, and unjust Excom­munication, hurting no man, and most neerly con­cerning the Question, being objected by us to be your guilt, whereas the other you treat, are out of controversie between us, it could not stand with the sincere treating a Question, wholly to omit it, and pass it over in silence. But the seeming exactness of your method, can yet easily over-slip that part of the distinction, which sounds dangerously, and is hard to be confuted, though the main of the Question onely stands upon it; and mention onely that which is easily excused, because none objects it, and very facile to be proved, because none denies it. Scilicet isthuc est sapere! C. 2. S. 4.

Your other testimonies here alledged, tend­ing [Page 14] onely (as I conceive) to prove, That unjust Excommunication hurts no man, are very currant and allowable: And I could have helped you to twenty more as good as these, to the same purpose, some of them In Greek too, which would have made a fine show. Your interpreta­tive C. 2. S. 5. Excommunication runs upon the same strain, and so needs no further Answer, besides that which the following Section affords it.

SECT. 3.

BUt now the Doctor hath got a new cloak for his Schism, to wit, the pretence of a weak Conscience; which makes him think he ought not to communicate with the Church, but is excused for not-communicating, because the conditions of the Communion contain in them a sin. And what sin should this be, But to C. 2. S. 7, 8, 9, 10. subscribe to things which their Conscience tells them is false: Nay even (saith the Doctor) though the truth be on the Churches side, yet really apprehended by him, to whom they are thus proposed to be false, it is hard to affirm that that man can lawfully subscribe; and therefore rather then do it, the Doctor makes account he may remain out of Communion, and that lawfully too.

This is the Doctors assertion, which indeed [Page 15] might serve out of a Pulpit to an Auditory that he would claw, with giving them that sweet and (as they esteem it) Christian liberty of holding what they list; but to any judicious person that knows what Government is, it is, in reality, the sublimated quintessence of per­fect Non-Religion and Anarchy. The Position comes to this, That none should be condemned or punished by his Governors for not-doing that, the contrary whereof he thinks is to be done. To give which Position the least shadow of likelihood, the Doctor is necessarily obliged to prove first, That no Pride, Interest, or Passion can make one think wrong, and consequently culpable in so thinking; which if the Doctor do, he will work wonders, and with a turn of his hand, convert this world of miserable sin­ners, into a Heaven of pure and perfect Saints.

But let us hear an Argument or two upon the Doctors principles: An ambitious or proud man, blinded by his Passion, begins to think (and really true) that the long established Go­vernment of the Commonwealth is tyrannical; and upon this thought, he proceeds to jumble all the Land into intestine Seditions, and to dismount the Governors from the top of Au­thority, and (as he tells you) conscientiously too, that is, with a perfect perswasion according to his present Passion. Force him not to subscribe to obey his lawful Magistrate, (saith the Doctor) he may not do it lawfully, it is against his Con­science. A revengeful or malicious man thinks that in all right and reason he may endamage the party that offered the affront; and upon the lawfulness of his so doing (while his humor possesses him) he would lay his Soul, Controle [Page 16] him not (saith the Doctor) he is in an [...]rror, but yet governs himself at present according to Consci­ence, he may not lawfully subscribe, or [...]eal a par­don, contrary to his present perswasion. The Ana­baptist thought himself nearly touched in Con­science, to cut off the heads of his Mother and Sister for kneeling at the Communion. Urg [...] him not to the contrary (saith the Doctor,) [...] cannot lawfully spare them, it is against his prese [...] perswasion. The Puritans (following the Pro­testants example) refuse obedience to the Church of England, seeing in her so many dreg [...] of Popery remaining. Unjustly did the Church of England (saith the Doctor) in obliging them to her obedience, and cutting off poor Bast [...] wicks, Burtons, and Prynnes Ears, who did ac­cording to their Conscience, or present perswa­sion. Neither will it avail you to Answer, that these were told by Gods Law, that their act [...] were unwarrantable, and therefore were cul­pable: For, it is easie to reply, that you were as much, and as earnestly commanded by God to hear the Church, and obey your lawful Supe­riors; and incurred a far greater sin, if you did not, to wit, the sin of Schism; which your selfe unfortunate Pen has out of the Fathers describ­ed to be a venomous compound, swoln with the mixt poyson of all sorts of Vices.

The Reader will by this see, to what a pass this Doctors Logick would bring the world, if his Position should take place, That no man should be obliged to, or punished for anything against his present perswasion, which he terms his Conscience. The contrary to which, that I may a little more elucidate from its first grounds, the Reader may please to consider, That this pre­sent [Page 17] perswasion, which a man is so fixt in, may either begin in the Understanding, or proceed from the Will: If in the Understanding, it must be onely a perfect demonstration that can beget in it so firm an adherence; and then, be­ing rational, it is not onely excusable but laudable: Otherwise it is an irrational resol­vedness sprung from a passionate distorsion of the interessed Will; pushing and exciting the Understanding without due deliberation first to pitch upon, and afterwards pertinaciously to adhere to a thing, more then the light of Rea­son it self gives. Which being in the Will vi­cious, is consequently (as all other Vices are) culpable, liable to correction, and by correcti­on reformable. So as, Licet non possumus opinari quando volumus, that is, Although we cannot deem or think a thing true, but we must have some Motive or other, true or false, why we think so, yet with this it well consists, that a perverse affection in the Will, may blinde and lead astray the Understanding, by proposing false Motives for true ones. And therefore when the Will by deserved punishment is whipt out of her viciousness, the Native lustre of the Understanding will quickly disenvelop its self from the cloud of mistake, in which the Passi­on▪ exhaled vapors had enwrapt her.

You see then, Doctor, (which perhaps you never reflected on before,) A man may be ob­liged to retract a present perswasion, and (how­ever he pretends Conscience for his excuse) be punished too, if he does not, since his bad will was the cause of his erroneous judgment, as the cases of the fore-mentioned Malefactors, your Clients, have, as I hope, by this time [Page 18] better informed you. But perhaps you would not have this method used in matters of Religi­on: And why not? Unless the violating the ever-sacred Authority of Christs Church, and renouncing the main support of all Religion▪ the Rule of Faith, (things in the conserving of which, the eternal salvation of mankinde con­sists) be less deserving punishment in the offend­ers, or less worth taking notice of by the Go­vernors of the Church, then the wrong of thir­teen-pence half-penny is by the Laws and Go­vernors of the Commonwealth.

The result then of your discourse comes to this, That all your dwindling suppisitions an [...] C. 2. S. 12. may▪ bees, (which you wisely put down fo [...] proofs, and sometimes for grounds) remain still in question, or rather unquestionably unsup­posable. Your tenderness of Conscience not to sin against God in subscribing to the errors (for­sooth) C. 2. S. 7, 8, 9, 10. of his Church, which he hath command­ed you to hear, onely Pharasaical arrogancy▪ and singularity in you, which makes you think and style at pleasure any thing Error, which the whole Church holds, if contrary to your pri­vate judgment: Lastly, Our pretended making Communion impossible, will be found to be onely a self-opinionated pride in you, and of all prides the most miserable and filly, to ad­here so pertinaciously against Evidence of Au­thority to a few obscure scraps of writers speak­ing on the by, and your own self acknowledged fallibility. All these, and whatever pretences you here in sinuate, will all lie at your doors, and loudly call you Schismaticks, unless you can evidence, with most perfect demonstrations, that those things were Errors which the Church [Page 19] obliged you to subscribe to; that is, that the Churches doctrine was, or is erroneous, and con­sequently her self not infallible. This, if you evidence, I shall grant you have not onely over­thrown ours, but all Religion; not onely ac­quitted your self of Schism, but also quite taken away all possibility of being a Schismatick; since no Authority can with any face or con­science, oblige to a belief; of which her self is not certain.

But, I doubt not, you make your self sure of the conquest, not apprehending any but Saints C. 2. S. 6. and Angels in Heaven, and God himself, to be in­fallible. To which you adde, of your own in­vention, impeccable; as your custom is, never to speak of our Tenet, without the disgraceful ad­dition of some forged calumny or other im­posed upon us. But that none else should be in­fallible except those you mention, I much wonder. I thought the Apostles had been also infallibly assisted, when they pen'd the sacred Writ, and peach'd the Gospel: I thought also our Saviour when he sent them to teach, and promised them his assistance, had said, He would remain with them always, even till the end of the world; that is, with the succeeding Church. I thought there had been some means to be in­fallibly-certain, that such and such Books were Gods Word, and genuine Scripture, without an Angel, Saint, or Christs coming from Heaven, or the Doctors private-spirited opinion, which he will call, God. Neither do I doubt, but the Doctor himself will grant it impossible, That all the Protestants in England should be fallible or mistake, in witnessing whether twenty years ago, there were Protestant Bishops, or no; and [Page 20] that such was the Tenet, and Government of their Church at that time: Yet a thousand time [...] greater evidence have we of the indefectibility of the Churches Faith, and her infallibility. As you may to your amazement see (if you will but open your eyes) 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. Thom [...] White, in his Friends behalf, whose Dialogues he set forth, enlarged, and defended against your acute Friends, Faulkland and Digby: Per­sons who did not use to treat Controversies i [...] such a dreaming shallow way, as it hath been your misfortune to do here; nor stand Preach­ing to their adversary, when they should Dis­pute. To these Dialogues, and their Apology, I refer you, that you may know what to do; if you confute them solidly, and demonstrate plainly, That our Church is liable to Error, you will eternally silence us, and clear your selves. But take heed you bring not whimper­ing probable may-be's, and onely-self-granted suppositions for proofs; These might serve your turn in your first Book, which might hope for the good fortune to scape without answering; but in your second, and after you are told of it, it will fall short of satisfactory.

Remember, Mr. Hammond, that you granted [...] cheerful obedience and submission of your judgments C. 2: S. 5. and practices to your Superiors, under penalty o [...] not being deemed true Disciples of Christ. If this be real (as I wish it were) then what easier con­descension and deference to the judgment of Superiors can be imagined, then to submit one [...] private judgment, when he has onely proba­bility [Page 21] to the contrary? Evidence therefore, de­monstrable evidence you must give in, of the Churches erring, ere your pretence, that you were obliged by her to subscribe to Errors, can take place, and so excuse you from Schism. But as your profession of the obligation you have, to submit your judgment to the Church, renders your probable Reasons insufficient to fall to judge her; so (God be praised) your own self acknowledged fallibility will secure us from the least fear of your Demonstrations. Yet unless you do this, you undo your cause; for if the Church could not erre, she could need no reforming. So that your Preaching of Re­formation is vain, your Faith vain; and by consequence your selves Schismaticks, and an Ace more.

SECT. 4.

ALl that is material in the Doctors second Chapter, is sum'd up in these two heads, that the Church does ill in obliging men to sub­scribe against their present perswasion; and, That the Church which they left, was erroneous, and so obliged them to the subscription of Errors. Upon these two notes, as on a base-ground he runs division all along this Chapter; repeating them so often in each Paragraph, that I was [Page 22] forced to omit my intended method at present; not making a Countet-sermon to each in order, but bringing together his dispersed Doctrine in­to Heads, and then confuting them; not doubt­ing, but the Leaves and Branches, which coun­terfeit some small flourish of devotion, will quickly fade into Hypocrisie, when the sapless roots are pluckt up from their rotten ground. The former of them hath been discovered in the former Section, to be worse then weak; his manner of arguing from the second, shall be laid open in this.

But, because I perceive Mr. Hammond very much unacquainted with our grounds, why our Church obliges her sons to rest in her belief, and continue in her Communion, thinking her (doubtless) very discourteous, that will not le [...] her subjects in civility (as the modest and mo­derate Church of England does) hold and do what they list, I will at present▪ undeceive him somewhat in that point▪ having a better occa­sion to do it more largely hereafter. First, The Doctor stumbles much, and (as Ignorance i [...] C. 2. S. 6. ever the Mother of admiration) thinks Master Knot's Inference very strange, that the Church i [...] in­fallible, otherwise men might forsake her Communion. Whereas, on the contrary, I not onely think it strange to infer otherwise, but as great an absu [...] ­dity as can be imagined; for why may not me [...] forsake the Communion of the Church, if they may forsake her Doctrine (since it is impossible to preserve the former, if he renounce the lat­ter;) and why may they not forsake her Do­ctrine, if she have no Power nor Authority [...]o tie them to the belief of it; and how can she have any Authority to binde them to the belief [Page 23] of it, if she her self knows not certainly, whe­ther it be true o [...] no; that is, be not infallible: Or what man living (who hath so much wit as to raise or understand the difficulty) can possi­bly so degenerate from Reason, which is his nature, as to submit it, in believing things above his Reason, and which concern his eternal Sal­vation, upon such an Authority, as may per­haps lie, and, so damn him for believing her, since, Without true Faith it is impossible to please God.

Hence follows by an inevitable consequence, that, since the Church pretends, and hath ever pretended to have a Promise from Christ of a perpetual assistance from Error, if Christ have made good that promise, that is, if she be in­fallible, then her obliging her sons to rest in her Faith, is most plainly evidenced, to be cha­ritable, just, and necessary; because in that case it were both mens obligation, and also their greatest good to believe so qualified a Mistress. Whereas, on the other side, any other Congre­gation that professes her self fallible, that is, uncertain of the truth of her Doctrine, cannot without accusing her self of the greatest injustice and tyranny in the World, binde others to the belief of the said Doctrine: For, it carries the prejudice of the highest unreasonableness with it; for a man to tell me, I will force you [...]o be­lieve that, which yet I my self know not whether it is to be believed, or no. Let not Dr. Hammond then blame our Church for obliging men to subscribe to her Doctrine, unless he can evidence first, That she hath not that which she hath ever from the beginning of the Church, pre­tended to; to wit, a security from fallibility [Page 24] by the perpetual assistance of her Spouse and Saviour. But rather let him invent, if he can, any rational excuse for his own Church, which professing her self fallible, and so wanting all power to oblige to belief, would notwithstand­ing have others believe her, accounting the Puritans, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, and Inde­pendants, Schismaticks if they do not; and dares enstyle her self a Church, that is, a Commonwealth which hath power and means to oblige to U­nity in belief, whereas, her own professed falli­bility or uncertainty, evidences, that she wants all the Nerves which should connect the Mem­bers of such a Body.

These grounds laid, it were not amiss to in­sert here, what the Author of that Epistle which was writ from Bruxels, in answer to Dr. Ham­mond, saith upon this place. ‘ By this (saith he) you may perceive much of his discourse to be not onely superfluous and unnecessary, but contrary to himself; for he laboreth to perswade, That the Protestant may be certain of some truth, against which the Roman Catholick Church bindeth to profession▪ of Error; which is as much as to say, That he who pretends to have no infallible Rule, whereby to govern his Doctrine, shall be supposed to be infallible, and that he who pretends to have an infallible Rule, shall be supposed to be fallible; at most, because fallible Objections are brought against him Now then consider what a meek and humble son of the Church (as this Dr. would he thought) C. 2. S. 10. ought to do, when on the one side is the Authority of Antiquity, and Possession (such Antiquity and Possession without dispute, or contradiction from the Adversary; as no King can shew for his Crown, and much less any other person for any [Page 25] other thing) together with the perswasion of In­fallibility, and all the pledges Christ hath left to his Church for motives of Union: On the other side, uncertain Reasons of a few men pretending to Learning, every day contradicted by incomparable numbers of men wise and learned; and those few men confessing those Reasons, and themselves uncer­tain, fallible, and subject to Error: Certainly, without a byass of interest or prejudice, it is im­possible to leave the Church, if he be in it, or not return if he be out of it. For, if infallibility be the ground of the Churches power to command belief, as she pretends no other; no time, no sepa­ration within memory of History, can justifie a con­tinuance out of the Church▪’ Thus far that Let­ter; which, had it not been strangled in the birth, and miscarried in the Printer's hand, might have saved me the labor of this larger con [...]ute; and, being exactly short, might justly be styled Dr. Hammonds Iliads in a Nut-shell; since the force of it was so united, the Reason in it so firmly connected, as might have cost the Doctor a full ten years siege, ere he could make a breach into it with his Brown-Paper Bullets.

But now it is high time to reflect upon the Doctors manner of arguing; who tells us here, That he needs give no more answer to our objection C. 2. S. 12▪ of a Schismatical departure, then this, That they who acknowledge not the Church of Rome to be In­fallible, may be allowed to make a supposition which is founded in the possibility of her inserting Errors in her Confessions, &c. And so goes on with three or four Suppositions, all built upon that first general Supposition, That the Roman Catholick Church hath erred, or is not infallible. I com­mend [Page 26] the Doctor for his wit. The whole questi­on is reduced to this one point, Whether the Church erred or no; as is most manifest: For if she evidently err [...]d, he and his Ancestors may possibly be excused for not believing her, and rejecting her Government by Schism, which she told you was sacred; but if she was infallible, no plea nor evasion can possibly serve your turn▪ neither is it your, or their supposing it, which can make her fallible, and so be a fit ground to build your excuse on. Now comes this Gentle­man, who in the first page of his Book is en­titled Doctor of Divinity, to handle this Questi­on; and onely desires in courtesie, that the main matter in controversie (out of which it was easie to infer what he pleased) should first be supposed or granted, and that upon that ground he would evince his cause. Just like that young smat [...]e [...]er in Logick, who undertook to prove his fellow a Goose; but first he would needs have him suppose, that whatsoever had two Legs, was one of those tame Fowl; which his wary fellow, notwithstanding his impor­tunity, refusing to grant, he was left quite blank, and his wise Argument at an end. Such is the on-se [...], such must be the event of the Doctors Logick: You and your first Reformers, are Schismaticks (says the Catholick) in rejecting the Government of the Church, and her chief Pastor, which she told you was both lawful and sacred. Your Church erred (saith the Doctor) and so we could not be obliged to believe her. I but (answers the Catholick) you must first prove evidently, that she is fallible, and subject to Error. O (replies the Doctor) we suppose that to be most certainly true, and without all dispute. Risum teneatis amici!

[Page 27]Yet Mr. Hammond hath involved another Er­ror in the same passage more unpardonable (if possible) then the former, so fruitful is his Lo­gick of inconsequent absurdities. For what man ever arrived to that heigth of mistake, as to endeavor to manifest his innocency by the voluntary confession of a crime, which implies the objected fault, and much more to boot; or to alledge for his plea against the accusation of his adversary, that which more deeply con­demns, and is objected to him as a far more hainous crime by the same adversary? Yet such is this Doctors acuteness. He is accused by us of Schism, and lays for the ground of his ex­cuse, That he acknowledges not our Churches infallibility, which is charged upon him, not onely to be both Schism and Heresie, but as the very sink of all Infidelity. For what man of Rea­son, but stands in an hovering disposition of minde to embrace any Religion, or rather Irre­ligion, nay even Turcism it self (as your best Champion, the Lord Faulkland, professes he In his Reply, p. 241. would) when a stronger blast of a more pro­bable Reason, shall turn the sail of his Wind-Mill Judgment; knowing and acknowledging (as he must, and does) That neither his own private interpretation of Scripture, nor the Church he is in, is infallible, or secured from Error by any promise of Christ.

The denying this Infallibility therefore, (Mr. Doctor) is the greatest crime we charge you with; but you (free of your Suppositions) suppose it your chief virtue, and put it for the ground of all your excuse. In this Infalli­bility is founded all the power of the Church obliging to belief, the inviolableness of her [Page 28] Government, the unjustifiableness of any Schism, the firm security, that Faith is certain, and lastly, whatever in the Church is sacred. The Doctor therefore in clearing himself, by de­nying the Infallibility of the Church, does the self-same, as if some discontented subject having first out-lawed himself, by denying the Laws, and rejecting the Government of England, and afterwards becoming obnoxious to those Laws by Robbing, Murthering, &c. should endeavot to plead, Not guilty; by alledging, That though indeed the English Subjects, who accept the Laws, and allow the Government of England, are liable to punishment, if they offend against them: Yet I (saith he) who suppose this Go­vernment Tyrannical, and these Laws unjust, especially, having a present perswasion, and think­ing in my Conscience they are so, cannot be obliged to keep them; and therefore must not be ac­counted a factious man, nor be liable to punish­ment, if I break them.

What will become of this malefactor, Master Doctor? your Logick clears him: But, the Reader, and I am perswaded, wiser judgments will think him more highly deserving the Gal­lows, for refusing subjection to the Laws and Government, and you more deeply meriting Excommunication for rejecting the Churches Infallibility, the onely ground of her Authori­ty, then for all the rest of your particular faults which issue from that false principle. But it is pretty to observe, how the Doctor never clears himself from Schism, upon any other grounds then those, which, if admitted, would prove all the Malefactors in the World innocent; and make it lawful, nay, an obligation in Conscience [Page 29] to dissolve the whole Fabrick of the Worlds Government. So true it is, That the very posi­tion of a Fallibility of Faith first lays, and in time hatches the Cockatrice Eggs of both Atheism and Anarchy.

SECT. 5.

WHen I had perused his third Chapter, with intent to see what it might con­tain worth the answering, finding scarce any thing which made either against us, or for him, I thought I had mistaken the Title of his Book; but looking back, I found it to have indeed this Inscription; OF SCHISM. A DE­FENCE OF THE CHVRCH OF ENGLAND, AGAINST THE EX­CEPTIONS OF THE ROMA­NISTS; BY H. HAMMOND, D. D. So that now I remain'd satisfied what was the Title, but much more unsatisfied to find my ex­pectation so totally deluded; and that in a large Chapter containing thirty six pages (almost a full quarter of the Book) not five words were found which touched the question directly, nor could in any way be a preparative to it. So as we have here 66 pages of 182. well towards half the Book) premised by the Doctor to in­troduce the Question; like the Mindian Gate, [Page 30] too large an entrance for so narrow a Corpora­tion.

Frivolous then had been the long Preamble of this Chapter, had it been to the purpose, and tended to the Question; but if it be found no­thing at all to the Question, but to wave and conceal the main, and indeed sole matter which concerns it; nay more, to have prevaricated from the very scope for which he would seem to intend it; then I will leave it to the Reader to imagin what commendations this Chapter and its Author doth deserve.

Our Question is of Schism: In this Chapter he undertakes to shew the several sorts of it; which therefore he divides into Schism against C. 2. S. 3▪ 4 5. Fraternal Charity, and Schism against some one particular Governor; as in the People against a Priest or Deacon; in those against a Bishop, in Bishops against their Arch-Bishops; in Arch-Bi­shops against their Primate or Patriarch; and there he stops; lest, if he had ascended a step higher to the Authority of the Pope, he should have said more truth then will serve his turn. For you must know he has a deep de­sign against Antichrist; and is resolved that half a score odd stories, or some few words and unwarrantable practices of discontented per­sons (especially, being cited in Greek) shall utterly overthrow him; in despite of manifest practice of Antiquity, clouds of testimonies from Fathers, and the Doctrine of the Catho­lick Church, of whose fallibility he is far from even pretending to any infallible Evidence.

But that we may manifest what we laid to his charge, that all this long Chapter is but waste­paper, the Reader may please to take notice [Page 31] that the Schism we charge the Protestants with, is not of the peoples Schism against a Deacon or Presbyter; nor of a Deacon or Presbyters Schism against a Bishop, nor any link in that chain of Schisms which he there enumerates; but we accuse them and their Fore-Fathers, the first Reformers.

First, of a Breach or Schism from the whole Catholick Church. This is without controver­sie the Schism of Schisms; and which in the first hearing of the word ( Schism) objects it self to our understanding, as being simply, properly, & [...] such; whereas the other are no­thing but particular refractory diso [...]diences in comparison of this; and may well consist with your obedience to the Universal Church. This, this, I say, is the chief and main Schism we impute to his fellow Protestants; yet the Doctor in his present Book entituled, Their De­fence from Schism, takes no notice of the chief thing he ought to clear them of; will not have it come into play, nor allow it a place in his Division, as if it were either none at all, or else such a slight one as was not worth taking notice of. Strange! that he could use such prolixity in trifling Schisms impertinent to the present discourse, and not afford the least men­tion to the greatest Schism of all, when the scope and aim of his Chapter necessarily required it, and the Question forcibly exacted it. Strange! that he could remember even the peoples Schism against a Deacon or Presbyter, and for­get that which breaks from the whole body of the Universal Church. But the Doctor is more carefull to preserve his own Copy-hold then the Churches Free hold; for, according to his divi­sion [Page 32] and Doctrine in this Chapter, his Parisho­ners would be Schismaticks for disobeying him, or a puny Deacon; but neither he, nor the Deacon Schismaticks at all for disobeying the whole Church. And thus the Dr. has establish­ed his own Authority to be more inviolable then the Popes, and by this one Division, has quite conquered and got the upper-hand of Antichrist.

Secondly, What is become of General Coun­cils all this while? Have not they as great an Authority as any private Patriarch, Primate, Arch-Bishop, Bishop, Dr. Hammond, or a Deacon? Far gr [...]ter sure, if I be not mistaken. Doubtless then a Schismatical rejecting their Decrees and Authority, is more hainous, grievous, and more worthy to be ranked amongst his fellow-Schisms then any of the others. Yet of this, in this Chapter where he expresly undertakes and pro­sesses to enumerate all the several sorts of Schism, we hear not a syllable.

Thirdly, What is become of Schism against the Head of the Church? Is not the Papal Au­thority greater then the Authority of any Patri­arch, Primate, Arch-Bishop, Bishop, Dr. Hammond, or a Deacon? Surely all imagin so, but Dr. Ham­mond and his fellows; why is this over-slipt then, as if it were a matter of nothing? But Dr. Hammond will answer, That the Popes is not in­deed an Authority, but an Usurpation, and therefore there can be no Schism against it: To which I reply, That I expect not that he should grant it here, but since he knows very well and grants that the Papal Authority was in a long possession of this Island, held and acknowledg­ed then, and still pretended to be sacred, and of [Page 33] divine institution; nay more, since it is confes­sed by them, that they rejected this Authority, and that this rejection of it is objected to them by us, as a far greater Schism than any of the o­ther he mentious, he ought at least have taken notice of it, and shown in what degree of Schism the casting off such an Authority was to be re­puted (as being Chief, and instituted by Christ) unless he could manifest the pretended Autho­rity of the Hope to be null, and an Usurpation. Moreover, since it is the use of the multitude, which makes words signifie; and that three parts of four of those who bear the name of Christians (if taken in the double extent or space, both of time and place) have acknow­ledged, and called it a main Schism, and greater then any the Doctor here reckons up, to reject the Supream Authority of the Bishop of Rome, the Doctor could not in reason avoid the men­tion of this so-commonly-called Schism, unless he had first manifested that it was none. Again, to state the matter indifferently to both sides, let us take the word, Head of the Church, as ab­stracted from an Ecclesiastical or Secular Gover­nor, that is from both Pope, and Emperor or King; nay, if he pleases, let us take it only in the later sence, which is his; I desire to know, since the Emperor or King, is (according to him) Su­preme in Ecclesiastical affairs, Head of the Church or Churches in his Dominions, above Patriarchs▪ and Primates, &c. why is not the denying this Authority a greater Schism even in his own grounds, than a Schism against a Patriarch, Dea­con? &c. For, the Authority of the Head re­jected, what means possible remain to recon­cile and unite the members. In omitting this [Page 34] therefore, the Doctor hath neither been true to our Question, nor his own Grounds. In sum, So wise a Logician is this Doctor of Divinity; That whereas the Members of the division should adequately comprehend all the several sorts of the thing divided; he has onely omit­ted the three principal Schisms against Govern­ment, and those not onely principal in them­selves, but also solely importing the present Controversie; and onely mentioned those, which were not objected, and so nothing at all concerning our Question.

Where, I desire the Doctor to remember, That all those Testimonies he hath huddled here together out of the Fathers against Petty-Schismaticks, will light far heavier upon him, and his fellows, if they be found to have sepa­rated from the incomparably greater Authority of the whole Church; and that not onely by a bare Schism, but also (which you here ac­knowledge to adde very much to the guilt of S. 9. the former,) by an open and most manifest Sedition.

The rest of your Chapter is taken up is things which tend not at all to the Matter you purposed to handle, that is, To defend your Church against the Schisms we object; which makes you also so ample, and large in handling them. You C. 3. S. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24. show therefore with a great deal of pains, the particular dignities of Deacons, Priests, Bishops, Arch-bishops, Primates, Patriarchs; you tell us many things of the C. 3. S. 15, 16, 17. Seven Churches of Asia, &c. I will onely glean what may seem worth Animadversion, treating it briefly, because you speak it (as you say) by the way, in passing, and the question is not much concerned in it▪ [Page 35] and omiting those Testimonies which are slight­ly objected here, and come over and over again afterwards.

First then you affirm, That the Roman Pa­triarchy extended not it self to all Italy; which, S. 17. though a known untruth, and which I have heard learned, and unpassionate men of your own side acknowledge; yet you will needs evince out of the obscure Testimony of one Ruffinus, a discontented, [...]illy, and barbarons Writer; and if you blame me for excepting against him, one of your late most extolled Mr. Dail­le, l. 2. c. 4. Writers, Monsieur Daille shall defend me; who characters Ruffinus to be An arrant Wooden statue, a pitiful thing; one that had scarce any rea­son in what he said, and yet much less dexterity in defending himself; yet you account here his Testimony very competent. But how small so­ever the Popes Patriarchy be, what is this to his Papal Authority, since even we our selves acknowledge him a Private Bishop of Rome, which yet prejudices not his Publick Autho­rity, as the Churches Universal Governor.

Your Testimony alleaged out of the Coun­cil C. 3. S. 22. See af­terwards Part. 2. C. 3. S. 25 C. 3. S 22 of Chalcedon, shall be answered hereafter, when we come to discuss the Question of the Popes Authority; as also your other out of the Council of Ephesus in its proper place, where it is repeated.

Your other claw against the Pope, is, That these was none antiently above the Patriarchs, but the Emperor, which you think to evince, because the Emperor made use of his secular Authority in gathering Councils. And who denies, but however the intention and order­ing that great Affair belonged to the Popes, yet [Page 36] the Emperors, as being Lords of the world, were fittest to command the execution of it. But ere you can conclude hence against the Popes Authority over the Church, you must first evince, That the Emperors (and the like may be said of Kings) did this without the Popes signifying such their desires to them. Next, That, if they did it sometimes against the Popes will, or pretending it their proper power, such an action or pretence of theirs was lawful. And thirdly, had it belonged to the Emperors (which yet none grants you) yet how will your consequence hold good, That therefore the Pope hath no Authority over the Universal Church? As if there were no other acts of an Universal Authority, but to gather Councils; which is all one as to say, That the Kings of England could have no Universal Temporal Command or Jurisdiction in England, but one­ly to call a Parliament. All your Marginal Testi­monies therefore, which you here bring (sig­nifying no more to us, But that the Emperor executed that business) are far from making good the Position you alleage them for: to wit, That the Emperors did it by their own proper Power.

SECT. 7.

THe Doctor having so wisely and securely laid his Grounds, that is, Having omited all Grounds that might either preiudice his Cause, or touch the Question, advances at length towards the Controversie it self; but with the same reeling-pace as formerly: In which, he continues throughout the whole progress of this Chapter with such a rambling career, as if what he had said hitherto, were but preparatives to absurdness, or but non­sence in jest; which here, being come to the point, he more exactly performs in earnest. Which, if my Answer to this Chapter do not plainly demonstrate, I will submit my self wil­lingly to be branded by the Readers censure for a most unjust Calumniator: But if it do, then let him think of Mr. Hammonds manner of proceeding, and his cause, as they shall be found to deserve.

And first, stumbling at the Threshold, he C. 4. S. 1. expects that the Church should produce evi­dence for her own, or her supreme Head's Au­thority in England. Which, since it is confessed by all sides, That the Pope was in quiet possessi­on of such a Primacy, it no more belongs to us to prove just, then it doth to the Emperor, who had derived the succession of his right [Page 38] from a long train of Ancestors, to evidence his title to the Kingdom ere he can punish a Rebel. It is wonderful the Doctor should be ignorant of that which all the world knows and ac­knowledges, to wit, That a long-setled posses­sion is of it self a proof, until the contrary be evinced; so as he who should deny the Au­thority of such an Emperor, were truly and properly a seditious person; and you, for the same Reasons, truly and properly Schismaticks, unless he can produce sufficient, that is, evi­dent Causes and Reasons, why he refused obe­dience to that Emperor; and you, why you denied subjection to the Pope; who (as you were told before) was not less found in a quiet and long-acknowledged possession of Primacy in England, nay, much more then any Emperor or King in Christendom was of his Crown; to wit, even by your own grants, for the space of eight or nine hundred years. Neither imagin that the Modern Protestants, who finde the Pope outed from his Jurisdiction in England, are therefore excusable from their Fore-fathers Schism: For, however changeableness of hu­mane affairs, and pretence, that Temporal Laws were constituted, and are disannulable by men, may render such rights and titles obnoxious to alienation or alteration; and so cause a deseaz­ance of any obedience formerly due to a secu­lar Governor: Yet, if Christ himself hath con­stituted any Authority, and enjoyned obedi­ence to it, no length of time, no vicissitude of secular Affairs, nor intercession of humane Laws can ever disoblige from this duty. So that, it lies still as freshly as at the first breach encharg'd upon the Protestants, under the [Page 39] penalty of Schism, to manifest with most con­vincing and undeniable Arguments, that the Pope could never claim any such Authority from Christ.

Which claim of ours, and (as the Doctor C. 4: S. 2. will have it) our first evidence, he goes about to confute in this Chapter. But, first, in big terms he layes out an ample Narration, how King Henry the Eighth, the Universities, and Parliament, not onely said, but testified under their Hands and Seals, nay, more (saith the Doctor) took their Corporal Oaths on it, that the Pope was not Head of the Church; and, All this (saith Mr. Hammond) is look [...] on and con­demned as an act of Schism in this Church and Nation. What a piece of wit is here! This is the very thing for which we accuse your Church and Nation of Schism; and you, by a bare Narration that it was done, think (it seems) to have half proved it was lawfully done. And all this, said, seal'd, and sworn by a King, Parliament, and Universities, is enough to amaze a vulgar-headed Reader into a belief, That their Votes could not be other then true. And I doubt not, but the Doctor himself won­ders, That the whole Catholick Church should be so unreasonable, as not to grant and think her self ever to have taught, and the whole world ever to have believed a lie, rather then to judge so uncharitably, That a lustful and tyrannical King, with some number of his Sub­jects, partly out of flattery, partly out of fear, adhearing to him (though these not a handful in comparison of the even-then-present Chri­stian World) should say, seal and swear a fals­hood: Especially, the cause of the breach be­ing [Page 40] most notorious to the whole world, not to have been Conscience, but vicious and unlaw­ful pretences: And, on the other side, multi­tudes of conscientious and learned men oppo­sing it; and many laying down their dearest lives in testimony of the contrary truth; whose taking the Affirmative upon their deaths, is more to be believed, then the other true, taking it upon their Corporal Oaths. Among those who died in defence of the Popes Supremacy, was our renowned and worthy Countryman, Sir Thomas More; whose esteem for Piety, Learning, and Prudence, as the King professed, was so eminent, That his subscription alone, if it could be procured, was worth half the Realms. Yet this so notorious acting and com­mencing of Schism (though sprung from un­lawful lust, and managed with most cruel ty­ranny) the Doctor seems to think so laudable, that the very mentioning it will something con­duce to justifie a Schismatick. All this (saith he) is looked on and condemned, as an act of Schism in this Church and Nation!

Next he proceeds to state the Question, by C. 4. S. 3. branching the Objection into many parts; which the Doctor will needs have belong to us to manifest ere the Objection will have any force. So as, possession beyond memory is of no force with him, which yet is the basis of all the firm peace this poor world enjoys, and the ground upon which every man remains quietly instated in his own. When such a possession is once setled, all Controversies are silenced; when it is question'd, a gap is open'd to all litigious­ness. Necessity therefore, and evidence, must both be pleaded, ere any one can justly quarrel [Page 41] with this Nurse of Peace. Yet the Church must plead her Evidence (saith the Doctor,) that is, Seem to bring in question her own long­possessed Title; and at whose Bar (think you) must she plead it? At no other then that of her quondam Sons and Subjects; and now, Re­bels and Enemies.

But the Doctor, most unfortunately accurate in his Divisions, tells us, That we must manifest first, the matter of fact, that thus it was in Eng­land. Secondly, The consequence of that fact, that it were Schism, supposing those Successors of Saint Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ. As for the first, The Reader, I doubt not, will smile at the Doctors folly, in telling us, we are to manifest that which no man living ever de­nied; and which himself immediately before, and far more largely hereafter, relates and ac­knowledges. For, who ever imagin'd it a mat­ter of Controversie, needing to be manifested, Whether or no King Henry the Eighth denied the Popes Supremacy. The second is yet more ridiculous then the former; since not even the most impudent Heretick in the World ever had the face to deny, but that, if the Popes Universal Authority was constituted by Christ, the consequence was inevitable, That it was both Schism and Heresie to reject and condem it, C. 7. S. 5. as he confesses they did. Yet is this the se­cond thing (saith he) which we must manifest ere the Objection will be of any force. But, to make the jest compleat, after telling us, That we are to manifest them; he, out of his courtesie, and to expedite the matter, is pleased to grant them, not requiring the pretenders farther to prove them. As if he could have resisted them, but had done [Page 42] us a great favor, in saving us from a most dis­graceful foil we should have sustained, in main­taining, That a fact was done, which himself and all the world acknowledges; and in being puzzled with proving, that what Christ bid us do, was to be done, and the Authority insti­tuted by God himself, to be obeyed. To what purpose was it to bring such unnecessary and frivolous distinctions, and afterwards wave them? But the Doctor (as I have shown before, and shall demonstrate more largely hereafter) hath a most special gift of his own, in dividing his Text; and he must upon all, or rather no occasion, show it. Which trick of his, though it counterfeit an order, and breed an apprehensi­on of a methodical exactness in discourse to or­dinary Readers; yet when it shall be discover­ed to tend to no solidity, being like the Phi­losophers dividing of Spatium imaginarium; all men will see plainly it is but a meer knack to be-wonder Children and Ignorants.

SECT. 7.

BUt now the Question is stated; this Chap­ter is to prove no Donation of any Pri­macy to St. Peter by Christ; the next, That no such Authority is devolv'd upon the Pope, [Page 43] his Successor, in the See of Rome. And now the long-expected time of the Doctors Evidences is come: I told you he had a horrible design in Lavander against the Pope; now truth is come to light. This, this is the fatal time that the Horns of the Beast in the Apocalypse must be broken, and the Walls of that Whorish-Babylon thrown down by the inevitable and unresista­ble Evidences of Dr. Hammond. But, to be se­rious, the Doctor and I joyntly request the in­genuous Reader, to bestow more attentive and deliberate diligence, in examining and weigh­ing well this part of the Controversie, then what hath gone before. The important weight of the truth in question, now hot in pursuit, and the very sound of Evidence, now mainly pretended, do both invite to a more particular attention. The Doctor especially granting, that C. 4. S. 4. the Question must be managed with Evidences, and so concluded, either on the one side, or the other. If the Doctors proofs conclude and manifest themselves to be indeed, what they are pretended, that is, Evidences, then I will grant the truth on his side, and the controversie at an end. But if all the Evidence they bring, be onely, that they are most evidently repugnant and most injurious to Gods Word, to all An­cient Histories, and to themselves; that they are open Forgeries, and most absurd Deducti­ons, shamefully abusing the Readers judgment, and ev'n his very eyes; then I hope, the Reader will pardon me, if I seem to bear less respect to him, in telling him plainly of his faul [...]s, who manifests himself to have quite cast off all re­spect to Truth, Gods Word, Antiquity, his Readers, and even to his own Conscience. But [Page 44] the Doctor begins to argue, have at Saint Peter then in this Chapter, have at the Pope in the next.

His first Evidence then (as he calls it) is from Scripture, That St. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision, or Iews, exclusively to the Uncircum­cision, or Gentiles. Whence he insers, that St. Peters authority, being restrained to the Jews onely, could not be Universal to the whole Church. So that all his first Evidence is to e­vince the No-authority that Apostle had over the Gentiles, or the Exclusiveness of any Apostle­ship in respect of them. But first Mr. Hammond C. 4. S. 5. tells us, what he means by an Apostle, to wit, A Commissioner of Christ, endued with authority by him; and this Commission given to him, as to all the other Apostles, indefinitely and unlimitedly; not restrained by Christs words to any particular Pro­vince, but equally extending to the whole World. Where, since he would go about to define an A­postle, he might have done well to show in what he is distinguished from a Disciple. However, all he there says, is true; onely we adde, That neither by any subsequent act of theirs (as the Doctor imagines) was this illimited Commission given to each by Christ, restrained to particular sorts of men, or several large Diocesses or Pro­vinces, so as to make them lose thereby their jurisdiction over other persons or places: How­ever they might agree for the better propa­gating the Gospel, to disperse themselves into several Nations; or by the provident coopera­tion of Gods Spirit, have a more especial gift in converting some sorts of people, then others; and so applying more their industry, where they experienced more fruit of their Preaching, got [Page 45] thence by their particular addiction to that sort of people, or that Nation, the appellation of their Apostle or Doctor. No Exclusiveness there­fore of their ample Authority and Apostolical Jurisdiction from any Sect or Nation; no hedging or fencing in the unbounded vastness of their universally-extended Mission and Com­mission within the Verge of any particular Pro­vince or People.

Yet Mr. Hammond will needs have all their Authorities limited, for fear St. Peters should prove unlimited; and therefore layes for his ground, to conclude St. Peter Apostle of the Jews onely, That they distributed their Universal C. 4. S. 5. great Province into several lesser ones. This he e­vidences (for you must conceive, that all these Chapters are perfectly connected discourses, that is, manifest and noon-day Evidences) out of two places in the Sacred Scripture, in ex­plicating which also his chief talent-lies. These therefore we must endeavor to clear as far as our abilities will give us leave; For the Reader can imagine no less, but that these two places, being the foundation of the Doctors future discourse, must be most unconfutable Evidences; and consequently must needs cost as much toil and labor in the answering.

The first place he alledges to prove, That the Apostles had especial and peculiar Provinces exclusively to one another, is that of Acts 1. 25. where the Apostles pray God to shew, Whether of the two proposed ( justus and Matthi­as) he had chosen, that he might receive the lot of that Ministry and Apostleship, [...], whence [...]udas strayed to go to his own place; where he will needs have [Page 46] [...], &c. to signifie a lesser Province. Whereas first it is evident to com­mon sence, that the lot of an Apostleship is nothing but the charge and office of an Apo­stle.

Secondly, It is most manifestly shewn to be nothing else, by the whole intent and trans­action of the business; which was not, to allot one of them a lesser Province, but to chuse a twelfth Apostle.

Thirdly, The subsequent effect of the casting lots no less manifests it, delivered us in this tenor of words, The lot fell on Matthias; and, he was numbred with the eleven Apostles; nor, and thereupon he got the Government of a lesser Province.

Fourthly, It is most plainly opposite to Scri­pture; for in the seventeenth verse of this very Chapter, St. Peter useth the self-same phrase [...], &c. (which the Doctor makes here stand for lesser Provinces) to express Iudas his dignity whence he fell; and in which, (as the very place cited by the Doctor, manifests) the Apostles desired another should succeed, but no man ever dream'd that Iudas had a lesser Province assigned him: It is therefore point­blank opposite to Scripture, to writh the words to this Interpretation.

Fifthly, This supposed, the Doctor is contra­dictory to himself, to imagine that, in which St. Matthias succeeded Iudas, a lesser Province; since he acknowledged before, That this divi­sion of Provinces was made after our Saviours Ascension; and consequently Iudas, who was dead ere his Resurrection, had no such Province in which another might succeed him.

[Page 47]Sixthly, It is most notoriously contrary to all Antiquity; and consequently, either mani­festing a most shameful ignorance, or wilful ma­lice in so mistaking it: For whosoever gave but a glance into those studies, will plainly discern, That the Apostles distributing them­selves into several Provinces, was done a long time after the coming of the Holy Ghost; whereas this installing of St. Matthias into his [...], which he will have lesser Pro­vinces, was manifestly before the coming of the Holy Ghost, as whoso reads the end of this Chapter, and the beginning of the next, will clearly discover.

Lastly, It is against your own translation, which expresses that, The room of this Ministra­tion and Apostleship, from which Judas hath gone astray; which your special gift of interpreting Scripture makes signifie, St. Matthias his lesser Province. So that, all accounts made up con­cerning this place alledged, the result is, That this first Evidence, or rather the Ground of Dr. Hammonds future Evidences, is so strong and un­movable, that it alone resists the whole World; being evidently opposite to common sence, re­pugnant expresly to Scripture, injuriously contrary to all Antiquity, prevaricating from the translation of their own Church, and lastly, contradictory to the Doctor himself. But, Humanum est errare, No man but is subject to Error; he will make amends (doubtless) for this mistake in the next Testimony.

SECT: 8.

HIs next Ground from Scripture (to put it out of doubt, that the Apostles had even then particular Provinces exclusively to one another) That St. Peter calls the going to those C. 4. S. 5. lesser Provinces, [...], to go to his proper place or assignation. Good Reader, view but the place alledged and won­der. St. Peter speaks there of Iudas his prevari­cating from the Apostleship, and going to Hell (which is there cal'd his proper place) to receive his eternal damnation; and the Doctor calls it, Going to his proper place, or assignation for the wit­nessing Ibid. the Resurrection, and proclaiming the Faith or Doctrine of Christ to the World. So as now the Doctor hath found Iudas a Diocess amongst the Devils; and by his blasphemous interpretation would have St. Matthias succeed him. So blinde is Schism, when it is grown to an inveterate­ness, that a proof of Quidlibet è quolibet, is a sufficient Argument, nay an Evidence to legiti­mate disobedience; of which, these two Testi­monies the Ground of this Chapter, are most pitiful proofs.

And now can any man, that entitles himself a Preacher of Gods Word, have the face to ap­pear in the Pulpit, to interpret those Sacred [Page 49] Oracles, after he hath been challenged and dis­covered to have so wilfully, and shamefully a­bus'd and corrupted them. And, alas, kinde Readers, and dear Countrymen, how tender a sence of your misery it must forcibly breed in any charitable heart, to think upon what slend­er reeds your present Faith, by which alone you hope for salvation, depends and relies. These are the men (for no priviledge is annext to your first Reformers and Teachers, more then to Mr. Hammond;) these, I say, are they, to be­lieve whose interpretations of Scripture you have left, the sence and faith of the whole world; to follow whose false call, you have abandoned, and forsaken the cherishing and gathering wings of your tenderest Mother, the Catholick Church, to stray up and down in a disordered wilderness of distractions. That Church, under whose care, your prudent and pious Ancestors for so many hundreds of years were brought up in a secure unanimity and set­tledness of belief: That Church, in whose bo­some they died, and from whose holy Arms they quietly delivered their happy Souls into the hands of their Redeemer, her ever-blessed Spouse. That Church whose Authority was under-propt with the strongest supports which can possibly be imagin'd to strengthen the frail­ty, and settle the fickleness of humane belief, in a most firm and constant adherence to super­natural truths; such as are the Motives of a never-interrupted Apostolical Succession, U­niversality, Sanctity, Unity in Faith, Unifor­mity in Practice, the ever-constantly-self-like Order in Hierarchical Government; the exact­ness in Discipline; the Possession of, and Skill [Page 50] in the Sacred Writ; the Conversion of all Na­tions, and ours amongst the rest; the Splendor and Reverence she observes in her Ceremonies, and Administring the Sacraments; the long­enjoy'd continuance of the Belief of Infalli­bility; the learning and multitude of her Doctors and Fathers; the unmoved constancy of her Martyrs; the Angelical Purity, and Se­raphical devotion of her religious Sons and Daughters; the higher and more elevated strain of piety in those Cherubins in flesh, her sublime and Heaven-soaring Contemplatives; the eminently good and charitable acts (pro­per fruits of that Tree) many remainders whereof our thankless and ungrateful Countrey still enjoys: And lastly, all these, with many more, by a conspicuous visibleness to the eye, easie to be known, and most of them actually acknowledged by our very enemies.

This Church, I say, and all those pregnant Motives, greater then which, the world cannot afford, nor mans wit invent to oblige to a se­cure belief, you have slighted; and suffer your dear Souls to lie at stake, under the most dan­gerous accusation of a grievous Schism, with­out having any better game to play, or any other excuse to alleage in counterpoize of so many weighty Motives, then onely the bare fidelity and skilfulness of some few private men (such as is this Doctor) who pretend to be wiser in interpreting Scripture, then all the world besides; and who will not stick, when they want better shifts, to delude your eyes with obtruding their own forgeries and sillily­critical explications (as doth this Doctor) for most absolute EVIDENCES. Awake then, [Page 51] as you tender your Souls endless good or mise­ry, awake; and let these gross-absurdities, with which they impose upon you, rouze you from the Lethargy of such an easie credulity. Wisely bethink your selves in time, how un­safe it is to relie on the bare Authority of their slippery interpretations, and relinquish the sence of the whole Catholick world: Which both possesses a thousand Motives they dare not lay claim to, and even in their own pretence, which is the right interpreting of Scripture, ought in all reason to have infinite advantages. Of this, dear Reader, I thought good to ad­monish thee by the way; in which, if I may seem to have said too much, the Doctor will make my words good in the process of this work; and if I have now complain'd for no­thing, he will give me cause, ere he ends this Chapter, to complain for something.

But ere I proceed, I desire the Reader to heed attentively what is in question, and what is granted. It is granted, that Saint Peter preach'd to those of the Circumcision or Jews; and for the more particular fruit, which by Gods especial assistance he found, and the more pains he took amongst them, was called their Apostle: As also, that St. Paul preached to the Gentiles; and for the greater cooperation he experienced of Gods assistance in that work, which made him more particularly addict him­self to them, he thence had the appellation of the Apostle of the Gentiles; as he himself clearly explicates himself in the place the Do­ctor alleages, Gal. 2. 7, 8. where he gives the reason why the Jews more particularly belong­ed to St. Peter, and the Gentiles to him in [Page 52] these words, [...] For, he that wrought with Peter for the Apostle­ship of the Circumcision, wrought with me also [...] ­mongst the Gentiles. Where the particle ( For [...] manifestly renders the reason why these t [...] Apostles were more properly particularized [...] these two parts of the world; to wit, by [...] other designation, then the more especial c [...]operation of Gods efficacious assistance, as [...] yet more plainly shown in the ninth Verse [...] the same Chapter. This therefore is evide [...] and out of question, That St. Peter more pe­culiarly applied himself to the Jews, and St. Paul to the Gentiles, at least in the beginning of the Church. That which is in question, th [...] is, whether the Jews were so particularly St. Peters Province, that his Authority was limit­ed to them; so that he neither did, nor coul [...] intermeddle in the conversion of the Gentile [...] that is, had no jurisdiction over them; an [...] the contrary of St. Paul. This is the Docto [...] Position, from whence he takes his first Evi­dence C. 4. S. 5, 6, 7. against St. Peters Universal Pastorship▪ That this Apostle was Apostles of the Circumcisi [...] or Iews, Exclusively to the Uncircumcision or Gen­tiles. Which Assertion is so shamelesly false, s [...] expresly-opposite to all Scripture, and ancient History, that it was not possible for a man to invent a Paradox so totally unwarrantable▪ and improbable as this. Nay more, I promis [...] the Reader, and Mr. Hammond too, That if a­mongst those many Testimonies he produces to prove it, there be but found any one sentence▪ line, word, syllable, or letter, which exclude [...] St. Peters Authority from the Gentiles, more [Page 53] then what this man puts in his of own head, I will be content to yeeld him the whole Con­troversie. And may not a Doctor of Divinity be asham'd such a proffer should be made him in those very proofs of his, which he would bear the Reader in hand are most perfect Evi­dences.

And first his pretended place of Scripture, C. 4. S. 7. [...]al. [...]. 7. (which we have before explicated) [...]nely says, That the Apostleship of the Iews or Circumcision was committed to St. Peter; but [...]hat it was of the Iews onely, or none but them, [...]o as by the particular Commission to convert [...]em, he lost or was excluded from any juris­diction over the Gentiles (which is the Doctors [...]ffertion, and can onely advantage his cause,) [...]ere is neither in that place, nor any where [...]se, the least syllable. Whereas it is impossible [...] should not see that the contrary (to wit, that [...]. Peter both had Authority, and did preach [...] the Gentiles) was as manifest in Scripture as [...] Sun at Noon-day; half the eleventh Chap­ [...] of the Acts being employed in a most ex­ [...]ss Narration of St. Peters vision, exhor [...]ing Acts 10. 34 [...]n to preach to the Gentiles, which he accord­ingly did, and went immediately by an espe­ [...] Mission of God to convert Cornelius a Gen­ [...], where he preached to him, and his whole [...]se. As also St. Peter in the Council at Ieru­ [...]m affirmed saying, [...]. Acts 15. 7. God hath chosen amongst us, that the Gentiles should hear the [...]d of the Gospel by my mouth, and believe. What [...] we think now of this Doctor, who puts, [...]vident out of Scripture, that St. Peter had [Page 54] no authority to preach to the Gentiles, where as the Scripture expresly says, He was chose out of the rest, and particularly authorized so that end? Is this man fit to be accounted [...] expounder of Gods Word, who thus wilfull perverts, and purposely contradicts it?

Besides, if St. Peter were made Apostle [...] the Jews Exclusively to the Gentiles, by the same reason St. Paul was made Apostle of [...] Gentiles Exclusively to the Jews. For the wo [...] alleaged ( Gal. 2. 7.) The Gospel of the uncircum­cision was committed to me, as the Gospel of [...] Circumcision was to Peter, (upon which on [...] C. 4. S. 7. the Doctor builds this Tenet) equally inser [...] Exclusiveness of jurisdiction in one, as in [...] other, over his fellow Apostles Province) as [...] Particle ( As) signifies, and the Doctor him [...] confesses Section seven, unless the word ( pecu­liar) must lose its signification. Yet it is [...] evident that St. Paul, where ever he ca [...] preached first to the Jews, as appears most evi­dently, Acts 13. 5. & 14. 1. & 17. 1, 2, 3. wh [...] it is said, That it was St. Pauls manner or c [...] to go into the Iews Synagogue, and preach Ch [...] Faith. Also Acts 20. 18, 21. where St. Paul s [...] of himself, That ever since he came into Asia, witnessed both to the Iews and Grecians, the [...] pentance towards God, and Faith towards Ch [...] Likewise Acts 19. 8. & 21. 21. where the formation against St. Paul, was, That he t [...] all the Iews, such and such things that foll [...] there. So Acts 22. the whole Chapter al [...] being a Sermon of his to the Iews. Again [...] 24. 24. & 28. 23. where we finde, that, [...] at Rome, St. Paul preached to the Iews, [...] And now let the Reader judge if this be [...] [Page 55] most steel'd impudence, thus point-blank, and diametrically opposite to the whole stream of Scripture, and onely upon his bare word to impale and confine the Authority of the Apo­stles, to mutually-exclusive and contradistinct Jurisdictions; and all this, meerly out of ma­lice (forsooth) against the Pope, to cut short his Authority, as he is Successor of St. Peter. These are the Evidences, dear Countrymen, your Doctors bring you to secure your Souls from the most dangerous sin of Schism.

SECT. 9.

YEt let us see, at least, what work the Do­ctor will make of it, if we let him alone to run blindly forwards upon his own grounds. He will have all the Apostles to have several Provinces limiting their jurisdictions, [...] or [...] (as the Doctor misfor­tunately called them) which must be peculiar to each, and exclusive of one anothers right, else this preparative ground will make nothing to the Doctor's purpose. Consequently to this foundation laid in the fifth Paragraph, he be­gins the sixth thus, If the Circumcision or Iewish Christians were peculiarly St. Peters Province; and (Section seven) the Gentile Christians, pecu­liarly St. Pauls, &c.

Now if this Doctor will stand to these grounds [Page 56] thus laid, I would gladly ask, What be­comes of the rest of the Apostles? Must they stand by, and look on while St. Paul converts all the Gentiles, and St. Peter all the Iews? You dare not say, That they were subordinate to St. Peter and St. Paul; that would endanger a kinde of primacy in jurisdiction: Will you say then, they onely help [...] them? That sounds dangerously still, and intimates some principality in the others; allowing them no jurisdiction at all, but as far as the others please to accept of their aid. You must say, then that these Provinces of St. Peter and St. Paul were pro­miscuously, and indifferently given to the rest. But the main Pillars of your Evidences, I mean your [...], and your [...] which you say all the Apostles had, and which apply'd to St. Peter and St. Paul, you will have to signifie peculiar and exclusively-proper Pro­vinces, will not bear, apply'd to the rest of the Apostles, the sence of a promiscuous au­thority. It onely remains then, that they have no [...], that is no exclusive juris­diction or peculiar Province at all, and there­fore nothing at all to do. Thus this courteous Doctor hath by his acute way of reasoning, in­finitely obliged the rest of the Apostles in free­ing them from the hard and laborious task their Master enjoyn'd them, and getting them all leave to play. Nor hath he less obliged the Pope, if it proceeded from good-will in him, and not from malice and ignorance; for indistributing be­tween St. Peter and St. Paul the Diocess of the whole world, he hath at unawares confirm'd the Pope, their Successor, to be the Universal Pastor of the whole Christian world; since it [Page 57] is most certain; and by the Doctor acknow­ledged, C. 4. S. 11. That the Bishops of Rome (beginning with Clemens) succeeded them both in that Chair and See. But is it not a pretty thing, that in his Section six, contrary to the grounds he had laid himself; and having no other reason, but his own conjecture, he cramps the vast jurisdi­ction of that Bishop, Apostle, and our Saviours Mark 16. 15. large Commission of Euntes in universum mun­dum praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae. Going into the whole world, Preach the Gospel to every creature; given to each Apostle, into those few pitiful Parishes of the Jews of the dispersion. And yet afterwards, repenting he had granted C. 4. S. 14. him so much, he balks his former too liberal donation to St. Peter, of the Lydian Asia, and bestows it on St. Iohn.

But me thinks I hear the Doctors Evidences call aloud upon us to lend them a due conside­ration; which therefore, especially the world, being now adays so scant of demonstrations, it were an infinite wrong to the advancement of Sciences, carelesly to omit.

And first he evidences, That St. Peter had no C. 4. S. 6. Primacy at Ierusalem where St. Iames sate; or, as he terms it, Singular Supremacy. By which expression, if he would say, St. Peter was not particular Bishop of that place, it needs no evidencing: But if he intends such a Primacy as is pretended St. Peter had, what means the word Singular? or how does the Doctor so quite take off all pretensions of St. Peter to such a Supre­macy, as he brags, pag. 73? Because (forsooth) Ibid. not Peter alone, but James and John entrusted that charge to him: What a miserable Doctor is this? who makes account Saint Peter could not be [Page 58] chiefer in Authority than the rest of the Apo­stles, unless he did all things alone by himself. And how can it invalidate St. Peters greater Authority that he took other two with him; since it is well known an Archbishop going to consecrate a Bishop, takes two other Bishops with him, and yet it follows not hence, that an Archbishop hath no higher degree of Au­thority than the Bishops. O, but he findes St. Iames named before St. Peter, Gal. 2. 9. and Ibid. that (doubtless) he fancies to be an invincible Evidence; not considering that if that argu­ment were allow'd any weight, his cause were lost; since in most, if not all other places in the Scripture, St. Peter is constantly named first of all the Apostles. Lastly, he tells us that Ibid. St. Iames had the Principal place in the Council of Jerusalem, where St. Peter is present; and AC­CORDINGLY gives the sentence, Acts 15 19. upon which, the Rescript is grounded. Where first, that St. Iames had the principal place, is a piti­ful guessing Assertion of his own, without the least pretence of a Testimony; and yet he puts the word Principal in other letters, as a main business. Next, whereas he alleages that St. Iames gave the Sentence, and then quotes Acts 15. 19. I finde onely that St. Iames, after he had pro­duced his Reasons, sayes, Wherefore my sentence is, &c. But the Doctor turns my sentence which can onely signifie his opinion or judgment in the matter, into the sentence, which sounds a conclusive definition and decision of a business under debate.

No wiser nor honester is his next Assertion, that the Rescript is grounded upon St. Iames his sentence in particular, citing for it, Ver. 22. [Page 59] of the same Chapter; but there is nothing there particularizing St. Iames, but onely that, Then (to wit, after St. Peter, St. Paul, Barnabas, and St. Iames, had spoken) it seemed good to the A­postles and Elders, with the whole Church, &c. And upon what grounds can this demonstra­tive Doctor affirm, That the Rescript was grounded particularly upon St. Iames his sen­tence, and thence deduce his priority of dig­nity, when as it is manifest to any one that shall read the Chapter, that St. Peters sentence was the same with St. Iames, in the main matter controverted; both concurring, that the Gen­tiles should be freed from the grievous burthen of Circumcision: And although the abstain­ing from Fornication, things strangled, and blood, be found in St. Iames his sentence onely, yet how can this argue a greater Authority in Iames? did St. Peter vote the contrary, and St. Iames his sentence oversway? or would not the advice of commanding them to abstain from the things there prohibited, have been voted and accepted of by the Council, though the proposition had been made by one of inferior dignity? unless, perhaps the Doctor imagines the Apostles and Elders of the Church, assem­bled in the Council, were such weak, passi­onate and partial men, that they did not de­cree things because they were reason and fit­ting, but because St. Iames spoke them, whose greater Authority (the Doctor seating him in the principal place) they were, you must think, somewhat afraid of.

But any thing serves this Doctor for an Evi­dence. His all▪ swallowing faith makes that seem a demonstration against the Pope, which to us [Page 60] poor men, because of our unbelief, bears not so much as the least show of a probability. And, he imagines (from the particle Then) in the two and twentieth verse, which he misunder­stands) that he who gives his sentence after an­other, hath an Authority above him. Though in reason one should rather think, after such debate as had been concerning this matter, Verse 7. it argued some greater Authority in him who should first break the Ice, and inter­pose his judgment in such a solemnly-pro­nounced Oration, as did St. Peter. But the Doctor will have the contrary a demonstration, and who can help it? The up▪shot then of this Paragraph is, that the Doctors concluding against St. Peters Primacy from St. Iames his being first named, is a prejudice to his own cause; from his principal place in the Council, the Doctors own fiction; from his giving the sentence, and on it grounding the Rescript, two fine little diminutive frauds and abuses of Scripture; from his instalment, a frivolous peece of affected ignorance; and thus you have a perfect account cast up of the Doctors sixth Paragraph in his fourth Chapter of Evi­dences.

Ere I remove to another, I desire the Reader whose little curiosity has not invited him to look into languages, not to be amazed at the large Greek citations, which here swell the Margin: I can assure him they are nothing at all to the Question, but of indifferent matters acknowledged by our selves: And I will be bound, both at this time, and hereafter for the Doctors innocency in this point, That he is never tedious, nor over large, either in Citati­ons [Page 61] or Reasons, which tend directly to the thing in controversie; as hath heretofore in part been declared, and shall more particularly be manifested hereafter.

In the seventh Paragraph, to omit what hath been answered already, he tells us, That St. Paul had no Commission received from, nor depend­ence on St. Peter, citing for it Gal. 1. 12, 17. Which words may import a double sence; either, that the manner of conferring upon him the power of an Apostle, was not by means or dependence on St. Peter; and so far indeed the Scripture is clear, and we acknowledge it; or else, that this power given him was not de­pendent on or subject to St. Peter, as the cheif of the Apostles; which is the question here treated; denied by us, nor contradicted at all by the place alleaged. But he proceeds in his fundamental absurdity, that those two great Apostles wherever they came, the one constantly applied himself to the Iews, the other to the Gen­tiles, Where if by, ( constantly) he means most commonly or even always, yet so as they retained jurisdiction over the others Province, then (to omit, that it hath been shown contrary to Scri­pture) it makes nothing against us. But if it signifie exclusively, or so, That neither had any Authority over the others Province, (in which sence onely it can limit St. Peters Uni­versal Authority, which as he expresses Section six, is his aim) then I refer the Reader to my eighth Section of this Chapter, where he shall see the contrary manifested to the eye by nine or ten most express places of Scripture; yet the Doctor goes on to evidence it by [Page 62] Testimonies, which obliges us to address our selves with new vigor to bear the shock of so terrible an encounter.

His first testimony is his own knowledge. C: 4. S. 8. Thus we know (saith he) it was at Antioch, where St. Peter converted the Iews, and St. Paul the Gentiles: But puts down no testimony at all to confirm the weaker ones of his own, We know; which yet had been requisite, that we might have known it too. But he tells us, that certainly St. Paul was no ways subordinate to St. Peter, as appears by his behavior towards him avowed, Gal. 2. 11. that is, From his withstanding him to the face. Yet wiser men then Mr. Hammond, to wit, St. Cyprian and St. Austin thought other­wise, who interpreted St. Peters bearing it so patiently, not as an argument of his less or equal Authority, but of his greater humility; that, being higher in dignity, he should suffer so mildly the reprehensions of an inferior, Quem (saith St. Cyprian) quamvis Primum Dominus Cyp. epist. 71. ad Quint. Aug. 2. de Bapt. contra Dona­tistas. elegerit, & super eum aedificaverit Ecclesiam suam, tamen cum secum Paulus disceptavit, non vindicavit [...]ibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter as­sumpsit, ut diceret se Primatum tenere, & obtem­perari à novellis & posteris sibi potiùs oportere; nec despexit Paulum quod Ecclesiae priùs persecutor fuis­set sed consilium veritatis admisit, &c. Whom, though our Lord chose to be the first of the Apostles, and upon him built his Church; yet when Paul con­tended with him, be did not challenge and assume to himself any thing in an insolent and proud manner, as to say, That he had the Primacy, and so should rather be obeyed by newer and later Apostles; nei­ther did he despise Paul, because he had formerly [Page 63] been a persecutor of the Church, but admitted the councel of Truth. Thus that ancient, learned and holy Father St. Cyprian; yet Mr. Hammond hath certainty of the contrary.

SECT. 10.

THe next Testimony begins thus, ACCORD­INGLY C. 4. S. 8. (that is, to the Doctors own WE KNOW) in Ignatius his Epistle to the Magnesians, We read that the Church of Antioch was founded by St. Peter and St. Paul. After which follows another of the same Author in his Epistle to the Antiochians, [...], You have been the Disciples of Peter and Paul. What then? These Testimonies are stark dumb in what concerns the Doctors pur­pose; for the founding the Antiochians Church and teaching them, might have been done by the promiscuous endeavors of those Apostles. Here is not the least news of distinction, much less exclusion of Authority and Jurisdiction▪ True indeed, the Testimonies are defective, and to blame; but the Doctor knows how to mend them by his Interpretation. [...], You have been the Disciples of Peter and Paul. ID EST (saith the Doctor) converted and ruled by them; the Iewish part by one, and the Gentile by the other. Was ever such [Page 64] an ID EST heard off? to infer an exclusive distinction and limitation of Authority from terms plainly promiscuous, and from which a confusion of jurisdiction might more properly be deduced. So as not a letter of the question is found in the testimony, but what Mr. Ham­mond with a blinde Id est, addes of his own: Insomuch as it is left a drawn match, whether his ID EST or WE KNOW be the better Testimony: However, this is certain, that in the Doctors apprehension they are both of them most absolute EVIDENCES, because it is most evident, he says them both without either Au­thority or Reason.

He labors in the next place to found a distin­ction Ibid. of the Iewish and Gentile Church at An­tioch; which, though it be not a jot to his pur­pose had he demonstrated it, yet it is pity to see what shifts he is put to in proving it. Ne­cessity makes many a man forfeit his honesty, a [...] this Doctor hath also done too plainly here. Where he abuses most grosly St. Peter with his Jewish Proselytes, and the sacred Scripture too, citing Gal. 2. 11. That they withdrew from all communion and society with the Gentile Christians. Whereas, in the Text, there is no such word as ALL, in which alone he can found the di­stinction of the Jewish and Gentile Church. Neither (as the place alleaged manifests) did they any otherwise withdraw from them, tha [...] in refusing onely to eat the Gentile diet; yet this he calls, withdrawing from ALL COMMU­NION; as if the Doctor made account there were no other Communion, but in eating and drinking▪ Moreover, since to withdraw from all Communion with another Church, is against [Page 65] fraternal Charity, and according to his formerly­laid grounds, a Schism, (a sin inexcusable by such light trifles as were then between them) it follows most necessarily, that while he goes about to prove a perfect distinction of the two Churches at Antioch, he hath consequently made the Iewish Church, for withdrawing from all Communion with the Gentiles, Schismatical; and blessed St. Peter himself, a Schismatick, nay, a ring-leader of Schismaticks: But, God be praised, the place is proved to be falsified, and so good St. Peter is vindicated.

His fourth Testimony or EVIDENCE of the C. 4. S. 8. mutually-exclusive Jurisdictions of these two Apostles, is taken from the writer of the Apo­stolical Constitutions, who (as the Doctor saith pag. 75.) ACCORDINGLY tells us that Evodius and Ignatius at the same time sate Bishops of An­tioch, one succeeding St. Peter, the other St. Paul, one in the Iewish, the other in the Gentile Congregation. Whereas the place alledged in the Author (which I will put down, because he slubberingly omits it) is onely this, ( Lib. 7. cap. 46.) Antiochiae Evodius ordinatus est à me Petro, Ignatius à Paulo: At Antioch Evodius was ordained by me Peter, Ignatius by Paul. This is all; there being neither before nor after, a syllable more concerning that matter. Where (besides that, the Doctor will, I am sure, ac­knowledge the Book of no sound Authority) you see the Testimony produced, expresseth onely their Ordination by the Apostles; but saith nothing of their sitting together, nor suc­ceeding the Apostles; much less talks of the distinction of the Iewish or Gentile Congregation; least of all, of any mutual Exclusiveness of St. [Page 66] Peter and St. Pauls Jurisdiction there; but all these, (which are indeed all that is to the pur­pose) are either voluntarily added by the Doctor, or groundlesly supposed, or else must be pretended as deducible thence by Mr. Ham­monds all-proving ID EST. However the story goes (for it matters not much whether it be true or no) it is manifest first that the Doctor hath not brought a syllable of a proof to serve his turn, were it granted: Next, that the Testimonies by himself alleaged here out of Eusebius and Origen, calling Ignatius the second, and out of St. Ierom, calling him the third, make much against the sitting of two together: Neither will he finde St. Paul was ever ac­counted a Parcel-Bishop in Antioch with St. Peter, that he should have a properly-call'd Successor there: However he might perhaps ordain some Bishop to assist there after his de­parture. Lastly, ere he sees what he does, he blindly sweeps down all his own laborious Cobweb-work with a Testimony out of Theo­doret, which affirms, that Ignatius received the Archisacerdotal honor [...] from the hand of that great Apostle St. Peter, where the Doctor leaves out the word Great, Iest St. Peter should have too much. Now then, The Apostolical Constitutions being a Book which is excepted against by all sides, and Theodoret being an Author beyond excep­tion, we have far more reason to judg by these Testimonies, that Great St. Peter ordained Igna­tius also, rather then Euodius onely; so as the Doctor is far from gaining, nay even comes off with no small loss from his own Testi­monies, notwithstanding the faithful en­deavors [Page 67] of his ID EST to the contrary.

His fifth Testimony is out of St. Irenaeus, C. 4. S. 9. which affirms, that the Apostles founded and built the Church at Rome. The sixth, (which the Doctor praises for more express) is of St. Epiphanius, who testifies, That Peter and Paul were Apostles and Bishops in Rome. The seventh from Eusebius, who tells us, That the Inscripti­ons on the Apostles Tombs mentions them as Founders of that Church. The eighth is from Gaius, an ancient writer, who calls their Monuments, The Monuments of them that founded that Church. The ninth is out of Dionysius of Corinth, who affirms both of the Church of Rome and Co­rinth, That each of them was the foundation of Peter and Paul. The tenth out of St. Prosper, who witnesseth, That Peter and Paul, the Apostles, consecrated or constituted a Church in the City of Rome.

These are six Testimonies of his, which I have put down in order as they lay, and fully as he cited them, not omitting a syllable. And now tell me, I beseech thee, good Reader, (for it may be thou hast better eyes then I) canst thou discern any the least word in any of these six Testimonies, which even seems afar off to limit St. Peters authority to the Jews, and St. Pauls to the Gentiles, which is the point in question? Is there any thing spoken here more than in a general and promiscuous sense, That they builded, founded a Church, were Bishops, &c. Do they [...]ound any distinction or exclusiveness of Jurisdiction? When thou hast well examin'd thi [...]; next, please to consider that to evidence by Testimonies, cannot be done otherwise than by expressing the thing to be evidenced: Which [Page 68] thing in our present case, being the restriction, limitation, exception, and exclusion of St. Peters jurisdiction (which, as given to our Sa­viour, to him, and the other Apostles, was, without controversie, Universal) this cannot be expressed, nor consequently evidenced by Testimonies, otherwise then by restrictive, limitative, exceptive, and exclusive terms; such as are Onely, solely, alone, to none else, &c. This once understood and apply'd to the pre­sent occasion, and the Doctors manner of pro­ceeding, whosoever thou art that readest this Answer, whether thou be'st Catholick, Pro­testant, Puritan, nay, even the Doctor himself, it is impossible but thou shouldst manifestly see that the Doctor hath not said one syllable to the purpose; there being neither in any of the former, nor following Testimonies, either out of Scriptures, Fathers, or Histories, any the least restrictive or exclusive sentence, particle or syllable for him: To say nothing, that all, both Scriptures, Fathers, and ancient Histories are most expresly against him. What a most un­fortunate man is this Doctor to vent these for EVIDENCES; and how unfortunate they, who hazard the eternal loss of their Souls upon such mens writings.

But, to return to our six Testimonies: By what means, think you, does he make them speak to his purpose? Not by torturing and screwing the words, to confess what they never intended; that were impossible in such stub­born allegations, and perfectly-silent in what concerns him: Nor by intermingling words of his own to prompt them, and make them speak out, which is the old and often-discover'd [Page 69] trick of his fellows; nor by criticizing, his former unsuccessful art; but by pinning a Paper of his own forging to the Testimony al­leaged, and gulling the Reader to his face, that the Author sayes it. So as the device is the same, onely the method altered; for the said necessary Paper-which he used to pin behinde the Testimony, now he pastes before it, begin­ning the ninth Paragraph, which introduces the formerly-recited Testimonies, thus; The same is as EVIDENT at Rome, where these two great Apostles met again, and each of them erected and managed a Church, St. Peter of Iews, and St. Paul of Gentiles. (Hold Doctor, the Testi­monies should have told us that; why do you forestal them?) And then, as in the eight Secti­on, after his own bare WE KNOW, he used the transition of ACCORDINGLY to bring in his Authors: So now after he had straw'd the way with his own evident, as he pleased himself, he ushers in the modest Testimonies with so many Soes: So Irenaeus, so Epiphanius, so the Inscription, so Gaius, whereas indeed the following Testimonies are no more So, or like his Preface to them, and to the question they are produced for, then (as the Proverb says) the running of the Wheel-barrow is to the owing of six pence. The Doctor shall put the Similitude in form, and the Reader shall judge: Just as I say (saith the Doctor) That St. Peter, and St. C. 4. S. 8. Paul, each of them erected and managed a Church, one of Iews, the other of Gentiles, with exclusion of St. Pauls authority over St. Peters, and St. C. 4. S. 7. C. 4. S. 5. Peters over St. Pauls Congregation: Even SO St. Irenaeus says, That they built the Church there; St. Epiphanius, That they were Apostles and [Page 70] Bishops there, &c. The Reader may perceive the fitness of the rest, by applying them at his leasure. Onely, ere I take my leave of these Testimonies, I would gladly learn of the Doctor, why, in his preamble to them, he maintains a distinction of Churches belonging to St. Peter and St. Paul, and, then brings in St. Prosper with a So, to witness it; whereas himself in the nineteenth Section of this very Chapter makes the same St. Prosper testifie the quite contrary, and a promiscuous Jurisdiction over the Gentiles, saying expresly, That Peter and Paul at Rome, Gentium Ecclesiam Sacrârunt, consecrated the Church of the Gentiles.

Were ever such mistakes incident to any other man, as are natural to this Doctor? But it seems he wants a good memory, a necessary qualifica­tion for him that says any thing at random, without ground, authority, or reason, to main­tain a false cause; or rather, indeed foreseeing the danger, he made the Testimony whisper softly in English, lest it might be taken notice of; translating Ecclesia Gentium, The Church of the Nations; because the word ( Gentiles) would be too much reflected on, being that which throughout this whole Chapter he hath abso­lutely interdicted St. Peter to have any thing to do with. Alas poor man!

SECT▪ 11:

BUt now we are come to his EVIDENCE of EVIDENCES, the Seals of the Popes, C. 4: S. 10: which the Doctor▪ here calls an IRREFRA­GABLE EVIDENCE. I know, the Reader will expect some most express and unavoidable Testimony out of some ancient Writer, beyond all exception, and of the first Class, witnessing, as the Faith of that Age, the contradistinction and contralimitation of St. Peter and St. Pauls Jurisdiction. The Testimony is out of Matthew Paris, which I will transcribe word by word, together with the Doctors Comment upon it. In the Bull of the Pope stands the Image of St. Paul on the right hand of the Cross, which is graven in the midst of the Seal, and the Image of St. Peter on the left. And this onely account (saith the Doctor) given for St. Pauls having the nobler place, Quia, &c. because he believed in Christ, with­out seeing him. (Here on Earth) addes the Doctor, in a Parenthesis. Here is all that belongs to this Testimony, transcribed to a word; with­out any more, either Explication or Applicati­on to the matter before or after, than is here put down.

And now, for Gods sake, Reader, tell me what canst thou discern here of St. Peters being C. 4. S. 5. Apostle of the Iews onely, and exclusively to the [Page 72] Gentiles, which may deserve it should be called an IRREFRAGABLE EVIDENCE.

My eyes are dazel'd, it seems, with striving to see a thing at such an unproportionable distance; for I can espie nothing at all in it: Had the Question between us been, Whether St. Paul believed on Christ without seeing him, or no, it might have served to some purpose; but to our case it hath no imaginable relation. Yet this Eagle-ey'd Doctor, in the bare pictures of St. Peter and St. Paul on a Seal, can discern clearly an IRREFRAGABLE EVIDENCE, that their Authorities are exclusively-limited, St. Peters to the Iews, St. Pauls to the Gentiles; which none living could see without his co­lour'd and insincere spectacles, to wit, blackest hatred and rancor against the Pope: While he looks through these, any thing appears an IRREFRAGABLE EVIDENCE, which may seem possible in his perverse imagination, to be detorted to the Popes prejudice, and to wound him, though through the sides of St. Peter.

After this Testimony or IRREFRAGABLE C. 4. S. 10. EVIDENCE follows immediately in the Do­ctor, And all this very agreeable to Scripture, which onely sets down St. Peter to be the Apostle of Circumcision, (and of his being so at Rome (saith he) we make no question.) What means his All this? For neither in any Testimony, nor yet in the Popes Seal, is there any the least expression of St. Peters being onely the Apo­stle of the Circumcision, save in his own words onely; yet he says, that all this, is in that point agreeable to Scripture; it is then of his own words he means, which how discon­formable, [Page 73] and totally repugnant they are to Scripture, hath already been shewn. Nor are they less dissonant in this very place to Sacred Writ; for neither doth the Scripture onely set down Saint Peter, as Apostle of the Circumcision, but James and John also. Gal. 2. 9. Nor is St. Peter any where exprest as Apostle of onely the Circumcision, but expresly particu­lariz'd the contrary, as hath been manifested out of Acts the fifteenth and seventh. So as that ONELY is your own forgery pin'd here to the Scripture, as before to your too sober Testimonies. Neither your Authors then, nor Scripture, speak a word of Saint Peter being at Rome the Apostle of the Iews onely; The onely proof of it is your own unquesti­onable certainty of it exprest here, that of C. 4. S. 10. his being at Rome you make no question; So that your onely grounds and proofs of your position is, WE MAKE NO QUE­STION, and WE KNOW: And I here again confirm my former promise to you, That if you can shew me the least syllable, either in Scripture or your other Testimonies, expresly and without the help of your ID ESTS, and scruing deducti­ons, restraining St. Peters Jurisdiction to the Iews onely, and exclusively to the Gentiles, I will yeeld you the Laurel, and quit the Contro­versie.

His twelfth Testimony (for his IRREFRA­GABLE Ibid. EVIDENCE from the Popes Seal, was the Eleventh) is brought in with another So. So the Scripture affirms of St. Paul, that he preach­ed at Rome in his own hired house, receiving them which came unto him, Acts 28. 30. which the [Page 74] Doctor most fitly applies to the Gentiles of th [...] City, the Iews having solemnly (saith he) departe [...] from him, Vers. 29. But looking into the Te [...] I finde no such word as solemnly, which he, after his accustomed manner, pin [...] to the Testimony nor any sign of a solemnity of departure, bu [...] rather the contrary, there being in that plac [...] no expressions, either of absolute relinquishing him, nor pertinacity, nor contempt; but onely that after he had spoken, They departed and h [...] much discourse or debate amongst themselves; which is rather a sign of hoveringness and unsetled­ness in the business, not indisposing them t [...] a return, then of a fixed and solemn rejectio [...] of his society; and rather a solemn dispute [...] whether they should return or no, than so so­lemn a departure as Master Hammond imagin [...] Next, the Doctor might have seen in Acts 13▪ 46. both Paul and Barnabas tell the Jews boldly▪ (saith the Text) That they would turn to the Gen­tiles, and depart more solemnly, shaking off th [...] dust of their feet against them, Vers. 51. Another manner of parting then this was, and yet many times afterwards did they preach to the Jews, notwithstanding their so solemn departure. Lastly, What became of the Jews which (a [...] is manifest in this eight and twentieth Chapter and twenty fourth verse) were converted by St. Paul? Must they necessarily quite fall ou [...] with St. Paul, and never see him more, because he had perswaded them to believe in Christ. Yet the Doctor upon authority onely of the word solemnly, which was of his own coyning, thinks he hath evidenced that St. Paul at Rome treated with none but Gentiles; the Text it self not admitting so much as a probability of it. [Page 75] But all is good Corn that the Doctors Mill grinds.

His fourteenth Testimony is out of St. Igna­tius; I will first cite the words as I finde them in the Author, in the place quoted by him, and then let you hear the Doctors Comment upon them. [...] (saith St. Ignatius) [...] Ignat. ep. ad Trall. [...]. What are Deacons, but imitators of the Heavenly Powers, exhibiting to him (the Bishop) a pure and blameless Ministery; as holy Stephen did to blessed James; Timothy and Linus to Paul; Anacletus and Clement to Peter. This is all.

And now, good Reader, (pardon me, that I am forced to trouble thee so often,) I intreat thee, as thou lovest truth and honesty, to take this Testimony and sift it well over and over, and then give in thy verdict, what thou canst discover in it, which, in the most far fetcht construction, can be said to evidence, That St. Peter was onely over the Iews, and St. Paul over the Gentiles. Here to an ordinary eye, nothing seems to be said, but onely that St. Peter had such two Deacons, and St. Paul other two, which are there named; wherefore, I say, sift it well, and that with the disquisitive exact­ness as men do Riddles; and when thou hast spent all thy industry in vain, I will bring thee Doctor Hammond, who will cure both thine and my blindness by his Exposition; beginning his eleventh Section thus, ACCORDINGLY (ob­serve C. 4: S. 11. the old transition) in Ignatius Ep. ad [Page 76] Trall. we read of Linus and Clement, that one was St. Pauls, the other St. Peters Deacon, both which▪ afterwards succeeded them in the Episcopal Chair; Linus being constituted Bishop of the Gen­tile, Clement of the Iewish Christians there. And there he stops. Where all that any way makes to the purpose, is subjoyned by the Do­ctor out of his own head. There is no dealing with such a terrible adversary; who though he should chuse out his Testimonies blindfold, and at all-adventures, yet hath such a perilous faculty, that nothing can come wrong to him, but he will, ere he hath done with it, make it speak pat to his purpose.

What follows in this Section, is onely a vain­glorious conceit, that he hath found out a way to enucleate a difficulty in History concerning Linus and Cletus, which all the Historians in the world never dream't on before; and this onely (forsooth) out of his own wrong▪laid erroneous grounds. But because the Doctor says that this rare and unheard-of discovery, or as he calls it, his Scholion, is UNQUESTI­ONABLY true; as also because it is built onely upon the slippery sand of his own saying, al­ready proved to be false, I will forbear to vex him, or trouble my self unnecessarily by vouch­sasing it any farther confute.

His twelfth Section proceeding upon the C. 4. S. 12. grounds of his own Scholion, lately brought to light, to teach the world new History, never heard of before, tells us, That in Pope Clemens the Union of the Iewish and Gentile Congregations was first made, and not in St. Peter. So that the Doctor first, upon his own giddy imagination, [...]ancied them distinct, and now (because he [Page 77] saw no more but one Bishop succeed in the Roman Chair) fancies them united, without any word from History to countenance the former, or any thing but his own Scholion to make good the latter. And surely it were very strange that whereas the diffi­culty about the succession of Clemens, Ignat. Epist. ad Mariam Cassobil. Tert. l. 3. carm. in Marc. Hieron. in Isa. 52. & l. de Script. Eccles. in Clem. was so ventilated, and the opinions so various amongst the ancient Fa­thers, Ignatius, Tertullian, Ierome, &c. no man could ever understand the business aright, till this happy age in which Dr. Hammond was born; whose Glow-worm fancy evidenced more then all the former lights of the Church could discover. Many evasions they found out to solve the difficulty; As that Anacletus and Cletus were the same; that Cle­mens (who (as Tertullian says) [...]ate Tert-de Prae­script. c. 32. E­piph. Haer. 27. Ruffin. Praef. lib. Praecognit. the fourth, and yet was ordain'd by St. Peter) refused the Office till the successive death of Linus and Cletus: to which solution recur S. Epiphanius, Ruffinus, &c. but none ever dream'd of Dr. Hammonds facile all-solving Scholion, C. 4. S. 11. That Linus was the first Bishop of the Gentile-Christians after S. Paul; Clemens the first of the Iewish after St. Peter; which had been very obvious to those that lived so neer those times; but the reason why they did not, is evident, because they never dream'd of a distinction of Iewish and Gentile Church and Bishops, whereas the Doctor dreams of nothing else. The Fa­thers and ancient Writers were (alas) in a great mistake, imagining, that all the endeavors of the Apostles (as far as they could without [Page 78] scandalizing either part) tended to reduce both the Iews and Gentiles to Unity and Uniformity in one Church, and to unite them in him whom they taught and preacht to be the Head▪ Cornerstone Christ Iesus, in whom is no distin­ction of Iews and Gentiles, till one Mr. Ham­mond, a Protestant Minister, came with his Scholions and Id ests, to teach them contrary doctrine.

In the beginning of the thirteenth Section, C. 4. S. 13. he affirms stoutly, That for another great part of the world it is manifest, that St. Peter had never to do, either mediately or immediately in the planting and governing of it. If it be so manifest (Master Hammond) it had been easier for you to make it manifest to us; and was requisite you should, it being your proper task; otherwise to cry it is manifest, and yet bring nothing to prove it, is as much as to say, It is manifest, because I fancy it so. But as before you brought the invincible Testimonies of WE KNOW and WE MAKE NO QUESTION, for EVIDENCES, so now onely with an authentick IT IS MANIFEST, you think the deed done, and your cause evinced.

In his fourteenth Section, he tells us, That St. John had the dignity of place before all others in Christs life time, even before St. Peter himself. This he proves plainly (he says) from his style of beloved Disciple, and leaning on Christs brest at Supper. As if, because Iacob loved Ioseph more then all his other Brethren, and therefore out of particular favor might have let him lean on his brest at Supper, it must needs mean plainly, that yong Ioseph was the highest of his Brethren in dignity, had due to him the birth-right and [Page 79] inheritance, &c. And who sees not, that the posture of leaning on Christs brest at Supper, was not an orderly and ordinary manner of sitting, but onely a peculiar grace and familia­rity used towards him by his Lord; yet the Doctor is certain of it, and for more security gives us a gallant instance, That leaning on Christs brest, signifies the first place next to Christ, as being in Abrahams bosom, plainly signifies (saith this All-explaining Doctor) being in dignity of place next to the Father of the Faithful: From which instance of his, if true, it follows, that Lazarus, who was in Abrahams bosom, was above all the Patriarchs and Prophets except Abraham; as also, that none was in Abrahams bosom except Lazarus onely; since there can be no more NEXTS but one. But it is no wonder to see the Doctor trip now, who hath stumbled, nay faln down flat on all-four so often.

In the rest of this Paragraph, he tells us, That the Jews in the Lydian Asia were St. Iohns pecu­liar Province; in the next, that the Gentiles there were St. Pauls; and when he hath done, destroyes both the one, and the other, with a Testimony out of St. Chrysostom concerning St. C. 4. S. 15. Paul, which says that [...]; A whole entire Na­tion, that of Asia was entrusted to him. To which joyn what is manifest all over in the Acts that St. Paul preached to the Jews in Asia, it is pal­pable that this Testimony affirms St. Paul to have had Jurisdiction over all in Asia, both Jews and Gentiles.

Again, since the Doctors ground [...] make the Jurisdictions of the Apostles exclusive to one C▪ 4. S▪ 5. another, and this place tells us, that the whole [Page 80] entire Nation of Asia was under St. Paul, it must follow out of his doctrine of Exclusive Iuris­diction, that poor St. Iohn had not so much as the place of a Parish-Priest allow'd him of his own, but what he was beholding to St. Paul for. What an unpardonable blindness was this to prove St. Paul over the Gentiles onely, by a Testimony which entitles him to the whole en­tire Nation?

SECT. 12.

AFter such invincible Testimonies alleaged▪ C. 4. S. 16. the Doctor begins to triumph, and tells us, That we cannot say any thing in any degree pro­bable for St. Peters Universal Pastorship over the Churches in the Lydian Asia. And the reason he gives, is because they were so early famous, as that Christ honored them with an Epistle in the Reve­lations. It must be a wonderful acuteness in Logick, which can make this conclude; Christ wrote an Epistle to those Churches, therefore St. Peter had nothing to do with them: As if the same reason did not as well exclude all the rest of the Apostles as St. Peter from their Juris­diction. But the Doctor says they were early famous; I ask him, were they earlier than our Saviours chusing twelve Apostles, and Simon Peter the first? if not, their earliness will not hurt us, nor help you.

[Page 81]His next two demands concerning St. Iohns and St. Pauls Jurisdiction there, are already answer'd out of his own Testimony from St. Chrysostom. It follows, Doth not [...]t. Paul give him (meaning Timothy) full instructions, and such as no other Apostle could countermand or interpose in them, leaving no other Appeal, nor place of Applica­tion for farther directions, save Onely to himself, when he shall come to him. And then to make the Reader believe, that all this is Scripture, he quotes for it immediately, 1 Tim. 3. 14, 15.

Doctor, Doctor, play fair above board. In the place you quote, there is not one word of all this long rabble, but the bare word Come, as is evident even in your own translation, where I finde it thus. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that thou maist know, how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the House of God, the pillar and ground of truth. Where, in the fifteenth Verse there is nothing at all of this rambling story, which the Doctor talks of; in the four­teenth Verse, onely the word Come: So as out of this seemingly-barren Monosyllable Come, the Doctor hath miraculously caused a fruitful harvest of Testimonies arise for his purpose; to wit, That St. Paul gave him such instructions, as NO OTHER APOSTLE COULD COUNTER­MAND OR INTERPOSE IN THEM, that he left NO APPEAL or place of Application for further directions, save ONELY TO HIMSELF, &c. Where are all those quarrelling and ex­ceptive terms? But the Doctor seems willing not onely to limit the Apostles Jurisdictions, but also to set them together by the ears; as if they were jealous, that their fellow Apostles, [Page 82] like usurping competitors, would intrude into their right, and therefore give express charge to debar their ambition from putting their Sickl [...] into another mans Harvest. Good Mr. Hammond, let us have no more of these insincere dealings. Let the restrictive and exclusive words, which onely make for your purpose, be the witnesses, not yours; at least put them down with that distinction, as may easily be discerned; and do not, after a company of your own expressions, mainly prejudicial to the Controversie, imme­diately cite a place of Sacred Writ, without producing the words, and so gull the Reader to to believe, That all which went before, is per­fect and pure Scripture. Whereas, indeed scarce so much as a blank Monosyllable is found in the Testimony to countenance your alleaging it. But this is your solemn method all over your Book.

His next Argument is, that St. Paul gave C. 4. S. 16. Commission to Timothy without St. Peter. And who doubts, but that each Apostle might by his own single power, delegate and constitute whom he pleased, and where he pleased in any place of the world. I perceive by this whole Chapter, that the Doctor understands not the question, or at least could not have made a Book, without counterfeiting, not to under­stand it. We voluntarily yeeld him, that each Apostle had an Apostolical Commission over the whole world; and yet fear no prejudice should hence arise to St. Peters Primacy, amongst the rest of the Apostles. Had Master Hammond known this, it might have saved him all that pitiful puzzle in making good his first Evi­dence, That St. Peter was over the Iews onely, [Page 83] by patching those old garments of ancient Testi­monies with the new peeces of his self-woven Additions.

This Concession of ours, and mistake of his; shews the next Paragraph, which harps upon the same string, to wit, That St. Paul constituted C. 4. S. 17. Titus Primate in Creet, to be nothing to the purpose: And I observe, That the Doctor (to give him his due) hath very good luck in this, That he proves those things pretty plainly, which none ever denied.

After this he tells us, That Simeon Meta­phrastes C. 4. S. 18▪ affirms St. Peter to have been in Britanny sometime, and baptized many into the Faith of Christ, and constituted Churches, ordaining Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the twelfth year of Nero. How now, Doctor, what will become of your excluding St. Peter from any Authority over the Gentiles, if this Testimony be true; were not all the ancient Britains, at that time Heathens or Gentiles? Alas no; we and all antiquity were mistaken, the Doctor tells us. That in all reason it must be extended no farther then St. Peters line, as he was Apostle of the Circumcision, ID EST, (saith he) to the Iews which might at that time [...]e dispersed here▪ So as though the story were true, yet the Doctor hath ever a help at maw; and rather then St. Peter shall touch a Gentile, he will fancy strongly, that there were I cannot tell, how many Diocesses of Iews in England (since there must be several Diocesses, where there are several Bishops) for St. Peter to con­vert and govern. So that Britain must swarm with Jews, Which might have been (saith this evidencing Doctor) dispersed there; and this without any authority, or likelihood, but onely [Page 84] because Master Hammond and his ID ESTS say it.

In the last place, the Doctor concludes out C. 4. S. 19. of his former laid grounds, that is, out of his [...], Iudas his going to Hell, out of his own ID ESTS, WE KNOW, IT IS MANIFEST, WE MAKE NO QUESTION; out of his clasping together very unlike, and disaccording Testimonies to his own voluntary Assertions with the Hooks and Eyes of SO, and ACCORDINGLY; but most of all out of the Papers of his own Additions, pin'd before and behinde the too-bashful proofs. Out of these grounds, I say, without so much as one word in any Testimony, either out of Scripture, Fathers, or History, restraining the Commission of St. Peter to the Iews onely, he concludes, That that Apostle could not be Universal Pastor of the Church. This done, he hooks in with another ACCORDINGLY a Testimony of St. Prospers, which calls them Hereticks, who depart from the Communion of Christ, and his Apostles (in the plural) says the Doctor; and then reckons up promiscu­ously such and such Apostles, founding such and such Churches. What follows hence a­gainst St. Peters authority? This Testimony seems also something aenigmatical, and requires Lynxe's eyes, or the Doctors far-seeing and all­penetrating Optick to look through the thick rinde of it; which he willingly lends you in these words. Where, as the Church had the several Apostles for their Founders (and those Independent one from the other) so the unity from which Here­ticks and Schismaticks are said to depart, IS SAID to have been founded EQUALLY in each of [Page 85] them, in John, James, and Andrew as well as in St. Peter. The word where, and is said, would almost perswade the Reader, that all that fol­lows is in the Testimony, but nothing is there, or any where else, That the Apostles were inde­pendent of each other; nor, that this unity was founded equally in each of them; nor in the rest as well as St. Peter: But all these his Doctor­ship huddles together of his own head. All the shadow of proof, one can have a glimpse of from this place, is, That the Apostles are here named promiscuously, and without di­stinction, and that therefore all were equal: Which, as it is onely a Negative and non­concluding Argument to say, That no distinction is here mentioned, therefore there was none; so, were the Conclusion admitted as Conse­quent, it makes as much against Christ, as a­gainst St. Peter: For he is also named joyntly with his Apostles, as those whose joynt-com­munion Hereticks leave. So as if the mention­ing of several persons indifferently together without distinction of superiority, argue an equality in their Authorities, the Doctors Logick may with the same reason infer, That Christ and his Apostles were independent of one an­other; that the unity from which Schismaticks depart is founded EQUALLY in them, in John, James, Andrew, AS WELL as Christ, &c.

And this may serve for a sample of the Do­ctors solidness in reasoning.

Yet, it is some sign of wit, if one can do him­self no good, at least to do himself no hurt; but the Doctor by this very Testimony, which made nothing at all for him, has most expresly [Page 86] undone all his former work, even beyond the help of an ID EST; that is, beyond all hopes of remedy. For whereas he had bent all his endeavors to prove, that some Apostles had the Iews onely for their Province, and had more especially insisted for nine whole Paragraphs together, in limiting St. Peters authority to the Iews, no body knows where; as likewise St. Iames his to the Iews in Iudea, Section six, and St. Iohns to the Iews of Asia, Section four­teen.

This Testimony by himself here alleaged, ex­presly manifests a jurisdiction over the Gentiles, in all the before-limited Apostles; nay, even in all the rest▪ The words are these, as himself cites them. In ipsâ Ierusalem Jacobus, Joannes apud Ephesum, Andraeas & caeteri per totam Asiam, Petrus & Paulus Apostoli in urbe Româ GEN­TIUM ECCLESIAM pacatam unamque posteris tradentes, ex Dominica pactione sacrârunt. James in Ierusalem, John at Ephesus, Andrew and the rest of the Apostles throughout all Asia, Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the GENTILES, &c. Where, though the Doctor would blinde the Reader with English­ing GENTIUM ECCLESIAM, The Church of the Nations; yet it is most notorious, That that word in the plural, denotes particularly the Gentiles in opposition and contradistincti­on to the Jews; as is evident, Matth. 10. 5. In viam Gentium ne abieritis, &c. Go not into the way of the Gentiles, but rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The same is manifest, Matth. 1. 4, 15. & 6. 32. & 10. 18. & 12. 21. Mark 10. 33. Luke 2. 32. Acts 1. 4, 25. & 11. 1. and in almost innumerable other places, both [Page 87] in the Old and New Testament. Thus the Doctor by this his strongest Testimony which he had laid up in store to conclude with a plau­dite his foregoing proofs, hath quite invalidated all the rest; and so ha [...] brought his EVIDEN­CES at length to a fair market, which as be­fore they were shewn to be but feeble props to support his partition-wall of Schism, which he is about repairing, and daubing, or playstering over; so now by an unluckily-lavish Testi­mony of St. Prospers, which told more then he would have had it, he hath made clean-work, and quite razed down his former crazy totter­ing structure; and that from, the very founda­tion, ID ESTS, and all.

SECT. 13.

THe second quarrel the Doctor hath against C. 4. S. 20: St. Peter, which he calls his second Evidence is, That no power of the Keys was given espe­cially to St. Peter, and therefore no Supremacy. But before we come to scan the Doctors pre­tended Evidences, it were not amiss to advertise the Reader first, what an Evidence is; that this notion being set, as it were, in the confines and mid-way between the past and following proofs, he may at once, and with a readier [Page 88] glance of his judgment, examine the strength and validity, both of those the Doctor hath already produced, and those he shall produce for the future. An EVIDENCE therefore, is that which is so clear and manifest a representa­tion of a thing to the eye of Reason, as unless we should with a wilful blindness shut those discerning powers, it is impossible not to see it. This clear and undeniable manifestation in Arguments drawn from Reason, must be both of the verity of the promises in them­selves, and also of the necessary and immediate sequel of the Conclusion out of the Premises, thus evidenced; and if Evidence in either of these be wanting, then that Argument cannot in true Reason be styled an EVIDENCE. But now a proof from Authority is then call'd an Evidence, when both the Testimony it self is authentick beyond dispute, and also the words alleaged so directly expressing the thing to be proved, that they need no Additions, nor Explications to bring them home to the matter, but are of themselves full, ample, and clear, nor possible without manifest wresting to bear any other interpretation; and, in a word, such as the alleager himself (were he to express his own thoughts in the present Con­troversie) would make choice of to use. This presupposed as a certain rule (as no man of Reason can or will deny it) both to judge the Doctors former Evidences by, and also these in question, we will now fall to examine them.

But first we charge the Doctor with preva­ricating against his pretended promise: For whereas he begins as bearing us in hand he would bring Evidence, that St. Peter had not [Page 89] the Keys given to him in particular, he brings not one express proof for the Negative, but goes about onely to solve our Testimonies for the Affirmative; which is not to produce E­vidences of his own, but to endeavor an an­swer to our strong Allegations for it: And this is a quite different thing; for he who under­takes to Evidence, sustains the part of the Op­ponent; but he who strives to evade anothers objected Testimonies, manages the part of the Defendant; whose offices (as appears) are op­posite and contradistinct. Neither indeed is this to bring Evidence, but rather Obscurity; for though he should obtain his purpose, he can onely shew by this means, that such or such Arguments do not conclude, but not that the thing it self is untrue; the evidence of which must depend on the strength of the grounds and goodness of the deductions, out of which and by which, the contrary is inferred.

Secondly, We charge him with a palpable injuriousness in making the answering our Testimonies out of Scripture, the sum of his first proofs, and yet omitting our chiefest, strongest, and most important place of all, Iohn 21. 15, 16, 17.

Thirdly, We charge him with manifest calumniating, in saying, We pretend this Donation of the Keys, as a peculiarity, and inclosure of St. Peter, and impugning it accordingly; whereas he cannot be ignorant, that the Catholick Church holds no such thing, but that each Apostle en­joyed an Universal Commission of Jurisdiction, and Power to binde and loose; which yet de­bars not St. Peter from being the Head of them, and having an especial Authority or Primacy. [Page 90] These things premised, to shew the Doctors false manner of proceeding, we buckle close to the Question.

The first place which the Doctor cites, as al­leaged C. 4. S. 20. by us for the particular Donation of the Keyes to St. Peter in particular, is Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt binde on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven. Which the Doctor ac­knowledges a promise to St. Peter; yet thinks to defeat it with other two places, Iohn 20. 21. and Matth. 28. 19. where they are delivered in common, and in the plural to them all. Indeed, if we pretended out of the former Testimony a peculiarity and inclosure of St. Peter, so that he onely, and not the others, had power to binde and loose, then the Doctor had by the follow­ing places extending it to all, concluded strong­ly against us. But we never pretended any such thing; so that the Doctors own calumny is the onely ground of inferring his Conclusi­on, and solving the objected Testimony.

All therefore that we intend to deduce out of this place in St. Matthew, is, That (whether those words▪ be the Instrument of Christs Donati­on, as the Doctor calls it, or no, yet) some­thing was said to St. Peter, in particular, and by name, which was not said to any other Apostle in particular, and by name, as is most undeniably evident: For it was never said to Iames, Iohn, Philip, &c. in particular by name, and in the sin­gular, I will give thee the Keys, much less after such a solemn manner, as was to St. Peter.

First, With a particular blessing and enco­mium of him, Blessed art thou (in the singular) Simon Bar▪jona, for flesh and blood hath not re­vealed [Page 91] it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. Then, alluding to his name in parti­cular: And I say unto thee (again the singular) that Tu es Petrus, &c: Thou art Peter, and, su­per hanc Petram, upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail a­gainst it. Then follows, And I will give unto thee (still in the singular) the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, &c. Necessarily therefore it must be granted, That something was said to St. Peter in particular, and that solemnly and up­on particular occasion sprung from St. Peters own person, Vers. 16. which was not said to any other Apostle in particular.

And, since this saying was a promise, it fol­lows, That a promise of some thing was made to St. Peter in particular: Wherefore, seeing this thing promised was the giving the Keys of Heaven, it follows, that the promise of giving the Keys of Heaven was made to St. Peter in par­ticular: Neither will the Doctors proving, that they were given afterwards in common to the rest, prejudice this at all; for there is no difficulty, but the same thing may be given to many in common, and yet to some one of those many in a more particular manner.

Now then, this promise being made not one­ly to all the Apostles in general, but also to St. Peter in particular; it is most consonant to reason, and worthy our Saviour, not onely to perform his promise, but also to perform it ac­cording to the tenor and manner in which he promised: But the Doctor cannot or will not finde any performance in particular, but wholly omits it (and indeed it was dangerous, for it was our best and most express Testimony) and [Page 92] instead of it, produces onely a performance to them all in general. Whereas Iohn 21. 15, 16, 17. he might have seen it expresly recommend­ed and encharged upon St. Peter particularly and by name once, twice, thrice; with as many re­petitions of his name particularizing him over and over Feed my Lambs; Feed my sheep, feed my sheep. And least such an one as Mr. Ham­mond should after so many expresly-peculiar designations, doubt yet there might be an e­quality, our B. Saviour asks St. Peter, Amas me plus his, Dost thou love me more then these; which manifestly puts a particularity, comparison, and inequality in Saint Peter from and above the rest of the Apostles in the interrogatory; and therefore the inference upon its resolution ( Feed my sheep) encharged upon him as an argument of this greater love, and the cause of this trust, must in good conse­quence of reason be unequal, and particular in Saint Peter, in comparison of the other Apostles.

These and some others are the Testimonies from Scripture, which (to speak with the least) every impartial man will see, that even taken in themselves they sound much to our advantage, and the prejudice of our Adver­saries; but interpreted by the Catholick Church, according to her never-erring rule of Faith, give us an infallible certainty, that they express a Primacy in St. Peter, whatever the Do­ctors private judgment imagines or ghesses to the contrary. In a word, the result of all Dr. Hammonds Answer is, That our Saviour pro­mised indeed in particular, but did not perform as he had promised, that is particularly, but in [Page 93] common onely: That is, by such a solemn and singularly applied promise, he made good St. Peter expect great matters, (as any man in rea­son would, by such a carriage) and then, when it came to performance, quite deluded his ex­pectation, giving him no more then the rest of his fellows▪

It follows in the Doctor. The applying the C. 4. S. 21. words particularly to Saint Peter hath one special e­nergy in it, and concludes, That the Ecclesiastical power of Oeconomy or Stewardship in Christs house (of which the Keys are the token, Isa. 22. 21.) be­longs to single persons, such as St. Peter was, and not to Consistories or Assemblies, That whatsoever St. Peter acted by virtue of Christs power thus pro­mised, he should be fully able to act himself, with­out the conjunction of any other; and that what he thus did (clave non errante) no one or more men on Earth could rescind without him▪ which is a just ground of placing the power Ecclesiastical in the Prelate, not in the Presbytery, &c. This is Master Hammonds Corollary out of the for­mer Texts, out of which (ploughing with our Heiser) he concludes against the Presby­terians.

But first since those words are particularly ap­plied to St. Peter, all that is implied in those words are particularly also appliable to him; and this being the Donation of the Keyes; it follows, That the Donation of the Keys, and whatever is consequent out of that Donation, or signified by those Keys, is particularly applied to him; but the Keys are the token (saith the Doctor) of Ecclesiastical Oeconomy or Steward­ship in Christs house. This Office therefore must be particularly applied to St. Peter; and seeing [Page 94] those words were no otherwise particularly applied to St. Peter, then by our Saviours speaking them to him in the singular, and in a singular manner, (as he did) it follows, That our Saviour told St. Peter in the singular, and in a singular manner that he should be steward of his house. Also, since all particularizing is a kinde of exception from an universality or community, and the universality or commu­nity before whom our Saviour spoke it, and from whom any kinde of exception could be imagin'd to be there made, was the other A­postles, it follows, That St. Peter was particu­larized out of that community for the office of Steward in Christs house.

Again, since the Keys are the token (as the Doctor proves) of the Ecclesiastical Oeconomy and Stewardship in Christs house, and, however we read that the effect of the Keys, that is, power of binding and loosing, was given to others, yet it is no where exprest in Scripture, that the Keys themselves, the badge of that Office, were given to the rest even in common, (for its no where read [...]bis dabo claves) it follows mani­festly, That if our Saviour kept his word to St. Peter, since he promised him the signal token of that Office of Steward, he performed it to him making him Steward of his house, and by the delivery of the Keys▪ installing him in that charge; so as onely St. Peter was installed; and if the Doctor will needs contend the rest were, he must confess withal, that he hath no ground for it, since he will never read either of such a promise or performance made by our Saviour, that he would give the Keys themselves, which onely are the badge of that Function to any of the rest.

[Page 95]Thirdly, Since the giving the Keys is parti­cularly applied to St. Peter, and that those Keys are a token of an Oeconomy or Stewardship in Christs house, it follows, the Apostles being a part of Christs house, or his Church, that Saint Peter was constituted Ecclesiastical Steward over them.

Fourthly, The Doctors inference from the particular Application of these words to St. Peter, That the Stewardship belongs to single per­sons, and not to Consistories and Assemblies. If he intend to deduce hence a power in all the rest of the Apostles, and all other Prelates, superior to their Assemblies or Consistories, is something scrued and far-fetch'd; whereas if the words be applied to infer, That one was made Steward or Superior in the Consistory or Assembly of the Apostles, they are plain and obvious, the pre­sent circumstances making that Explication natural.

Lastly, Saint Peter being thus constituted Steward in Christs house, all that follows in the Doctor (though otherwise meant) runs on very currantly, and upon his grounds; to wit, That whatsoever St. Peter acted by virtue of Christs power thus promised, he should be fully able to act himself without the conjunction of any other, and that what he thus did (clave non errante) no one or more men on Earth could rescind without him. Thus hath Doctor Hammond, while he disputes against his Brother Presbyters, faln into a sud­den fit of Popery, and at unawares laid grounds for a greater Authority in the Pope, then many Papists will grant him. But it is onely a fit; he will recover, I doubt not speed [...]ly, as soon he begins to combate us afresh.

[Page 96]But now (as I said) the Scene is chang'd; The Presbyterian being routed by our weapons, that the words were spoken particularly to St. Peter, he throws them away; affirming here pag. 88. most shamelesly and expresly against Scripture, alleaged by himself, (which named St. Peter in particular, and no other in particular) That this power was as distinctly promised to each single Apo­stle, as to St. Peter, alleages for his first Evi­dence the words of Scripture, Matth. 18. 18. which he says are most clear for that purpose. But looking into the Text, I finde it onely spoken in common, and general to all the Apostles; not a word particularizing each single Apostle▪ and distinctly (as the Doctor would have it) which yet was done to Saint Peter, Matth. 16. 19.

His second most clear proof, is introduced with the old ACCORDINGLY thus; And AC­CORDINGLY, Matth. 19. the promise is again made of twelve Thrones for each to sit on to judge, ID EST, (saith the Doctor) to rule or preside in the Church. Well done, Doctor; give you but your own proper weapon of ID EST, in weild­ing which you have a marvellous dexterity▪ and I'll lay an hundred crowns on your head against the best disputant in Christendom. All the world (as far as I ever heard) except this Doctor, understands the place as meant of our Saviours coming to judgment at the Resurrecti­on, and the Apostles sitting with him to judge. But the Doctor with the help of an ID EST, hath made the day of Judgment come in the Apostles time, turned judge into preside; and [...], a Throne, or Iudgment seat into Cathedra, an Episcepal Chair or See.

[Page 97]His third proof is a dumb Negative, That the Holy Ghost descended on all the Apostles in fire, with­out any peculiar mark allowed▪ to St. Peter. Which reduced into form, mutters out thus much, That St. Peter had no peculiar mark of fire, Ergo, (concludes the Doctor) He was not head of the Apostles. Where first I would ask the Doctor, how he knows there was no peculiar mark allowed St. Peter. He was not there, I suppose, to see, and there is no History, either sacred or pro­phane, that expresses the contrary. Next, if we may judge by exterior actions, and may believe, That out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, then perhaps the Doctor may re­ceive some satisfaction in this point also, that St. Peter had in a more peculiar manner the Holy Ghost: For it was he that first burst out into that Heavenly Sermon which convert­ed three thousand. But nothing will serve the Doctors curiosity, except a greater tongue of fire; if he have not that, it is most clear, he is no head of the Apostles. What a wise man is he to think St. Peter could not be chief Pastor of the Church, but God must needs be bound to watch all occasions, to manifest it by a parti­cular miracle.

His fourth is from these words, And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. In the name of Wonder, what can be deduced from this place against St. Peters Primacy! The Doctor will manifest it plainly; And so (saith he) the pro­mise of the spirit EQUALLY performed to all. Suppose it were equally; what follows thence? Therefore St. Peter not chief of the Apostles? As if none could be higher in dignity, but he must necessarily have more of the Holy Ghost in [Page 98] him. This Reason then, you see, is so shallow, that even a childe may foard it; but his conse­quence is still shallower, inferring from their being full of the Holy Ghost, that they had it e­qually. As if each could not be full according to their diverse capacities, and yet receive it in a very unequal degree. Our Saviour ( Luke 4. 1▪) is said to be full of the Holy Ghost, so is Barnabas, Acts 11. 24. yet▪ as I hope, the Doctor will not say, Barnabas had the Holy Ghost equally with our Saviour; So, all the Saints in Heaven are full of Glory, yet differ as one Star from another in the degrees of that Glory, distributed to them according to the measure of their several capa­cities. Which puts me in minde of a story of a Plough-man, who dining with his fellow­rusticks, when his companions strove to get the bigger Eggs, he indifferently chose the lesser; affirming, That all were equal: For which, when he was laught at, he defended himself with this (as he thought) serious Rea­son, That the little Eggs had as much meat in them, as they could hold, and the great ones had no more; and therefore there was no dif­ference between them. Surely the Doctor heard this dispute, stole the Argument; and now infers here from all, being full of the Holy Ghost, that all had it equally.

The Testimonies you alleage out of the Fa­thers, C. 4. S. 21. That the power of the Keys was conforred on all the Apostles; that from the giving St. Peter tho Keys, the continual successions of Bishops flows; that the Church is built upon the Bishops, &c. We al­low of to a tittle, and charge it upon you, at either a pittiful ignorance, or a malicious ca­lumny, to pretend by objecting those, that we [Page 99] build not the Church upon Bishops in the plural, nor allow any authority to them, but to the Pope onely; whereas you cannot but know how great Authority we give to Councils (con­sisting of Bishops) insomuch, as it is a School­dispute amongst our Writers, Whether the Pope or the Council be of higher Authority. Neither do the Testimonies of Bishops ( in the plural) in the least manner touch us; there be­ing not one word in them, excluding the Pope. Nay, rather they make for us; for the Church being founded on Apostles and Bishops, pre­judices not St. Peter and his Successors to be the chiefest: And if so, then the Church is built most chiefly, and especially on St. Peter and his Successors, which is all we Catholicks say; and not on them onely; which he first calumniates us with, and then dreamingly impugns; end­ing his two and twentieth Paragraph with a Testimony out of St. Basil, who calls Episcopacy, The Presidency of the Apostles; the very same (adds the Doctor) That Christ bestowed upon all, and not onely on one of them; as if we held there were but one Apostle, or else that those Bi­shops who succeeded the rest of the Apostles, and were constituted by them, were not truly and properly Bishops.

It follows in the next Section. By all which, that is, by your omitting our best proof from Scripture, and answering the weakest; by supposing a calumny; by your mistake of twelve Thrones; by St. Peters having no greater a tongue of fire, and all the Apostles being full of the Holy Ghost; by the Testimonies of Fathers, naming Bishops and Apostles in the plural, our of which meer plurality, he infers an equality of [Page 100] Authority. By all this, the Doctor says it is evi­dent again, That the Power which Christs Com­mission instated on St. Peter, was in like manner entrusted to every other single Apostle, as well as to him, &c. Whereas he hath not produced one syllable, expressing any singularity used to any other single Apostle, as was to St. Peter; nor one equalizing term, of as well, equally, &c. but what he addes himself: Though these be the onely expressions can serve him, and which he pretends to here, as already produced; and by producing them to have made the matter Evi­dent.

But the Doctor being by this time pump'd dry of his own Evidences, betakes himself to his former method of answering our Argu­ments, or (as he calls it) to evacuate them. And what Argument think you will he chuse to e­vacuate; but that which is drawn from the word [...]; and how will he evacuate it, but first from Homers Iliads, next from the Revela­tions. But indeed he puts our Argument so weakly, or rather not at all; that is, he swal­lows our proof so glibly, and yet evacuates it so groaningly, that it were charity in some good body to ease him in this his greatest ex­tremity. The sum of his solution of I cannot tell what (for he urges no Argument of ours, but onely puts down the bare word [...],) seems to be this, That [...] is the same with [...], and therefore signifies vulgarly a Stone, and in Homers Iliads is applied to denote an huge loggerly Stone like a Mill-stone ( [...]:) Next, this Stone by the Scripture must needs be a foundation Stone; and there being Twelve foundation-stones named in the Apo­calypse, [Page 101] called there [...], it must follow, that [...] (which before was a vulgar-stone) is now advanced to be [...], or a preci­ous stone. Now follows his first inference (as well as I can gather it) That all the twelve Apo­stles being in like manner (and not St. Peter onely and above the rest) styled Foundation-stones; it is consequent hence, that all were equal. Where first the Argument is again onely Negative, to wit, that no distinction is there put, therefore there was none: To make which inference good, he must first shew that, if there were any distinction, it must necessarily be exprest upon all occasions. Next, it is a most pitiful peece of reason to perswade the Reader from onely a plurality, and naming twelve Apostles, that all were equal: As if out of the very naming in the plural twelve Signs, Shires, Cities, or Magi­strates, it must necessarily follow out of the bare common name of Sign, Magistrate, &c. gi­ven to each of them, that all were equal. Again, the Doctor hath quite overthrown his cause by arguing, That not onely St. Peter, but the rest also were called Foundation-stones; and therefore they were all equal: Since, granting (as he does) that a Foundation-stone, and [...] being the same, and onely St. Peter having the name of [...], it follows in the Doctors grounds, That he onely, and, in good reason, that he more particularly should be a Rock or Foundation-stone. Where note, that the Doctor would have all the Apostles call Peter; for the name of [...] being given St. Peter, by our Saviour, for no other end but to signifie he was a Rock, or (as the Doctor will have it) a Foundation-stone, and every Apostle being ac­cording [Page 102] to Master Hammond equally such, it fol­lows, That they have all as good title to be called Peter, as that Apostle, who alone (till Master Hammond writ,) had that appella­tion.

It follows (to strengthen his former weak reason) And it being there in vision APPARENT, that the wall of the City, Id est, of the Church, being measured exactly, and found to be an hundred forty four, Id est, (saith he) Twelve times twelve cubits, It is evident, That that mensuration assigns an equal proportion, whether of Power or Province, to all and every of the Apostles; which is again a prejudice to the Universal Pastorship of any one of them. Thus the Doctor, intends for an up-shot-Argument to evidence an equality in all the A­postles by the equal division of this Wall. But I crave leave to ask the Doctor, whether he be certain, that none of those precious Stones, which equally made up this Wall, is richer then the rest. For the richness in things of this na­ture, being more considerable, and more en­hancing their value, then the bulk and quantity; it follows▪ That the greater preciousness and lustre which manifests it self in one above an­other, may better claim a signification, That that Apostle, who is represented by it, had an authority above the rest, then the equal mea­sure of the Wall can infer an equality; nay more, if there be an equality in the bigness, and an inequality in the worth, there is no evasion, but it must resemble a worthier person. In order to which, there comes a congruous Argument to my minde; such, as if it were on the Doctors side, and he had the managing of it, I know he would make it a MOST IRREFRAGABLE, [Page 103] and UNQUESTIONABLE EVIDENCE: And, though Catholicks▪ who understand the grounds of their Faith, [...]light such poor sup­ports as a self-fancied Explication of the ob­scurest part of Scripture (in which chiefly consists the Doctors talent in evidencing) yet be­cause perhaps he may fancy it stronger then twenty demonstrations, and so it may come to do him much good, he shall have it very wil­lingly. Amongst these twelve pretious Foun­dation-stones, denoting the twelve Apostles, the Doctor will not deny the first to signifie St. Peter, to whom, he and his fellows, are content C. 8. S. 5. at least, to grant from our Saviours words a priority of Order. This first foundation then shadowing to us St. Peter, is here Chap. 21. 19. said to be a Iasper; the self-same Stone whose lustre shined in our Saviour, Apoc. 4. 3. and also in his Church, Apoc. 21. 11. Whence follows (would the Doctor triumphantly cry out) as an IRREFRAGABLE EVIDENCE, that St. Peter onely having the same lustre with our Sa­viour, is like him in representation, and so onely he resembles him as his Vicegerent or Vicar: As also, that being the same Stone the Church is made of, and the first of all the rest, it is un­questionably true (would he say) that he is the first part of the Church, that is, her Head. Under what luckless Constellation was Mr. Hammond born, to meddle with the Foundation-stones in the Apocalypse, and not fore see this dangerous rub; which makes him so far from evidencing against us thence, that the very place objected, happens to be an Evidence against himself; I mean, such a kinde of proof, as he would call an Evidence.

[Page 104]And thus he concludes his fourth Chapter, containing the first substantial part of his Book. In which, as I sincerely profess I have not found one word to the purpose, that is, not one re­strictive word of St. Peters Universal Pastor­ship, nor one express equalizing term of his power of the Keys to the rest of the Apostles; so, I must confess withal, that I have both wea­ried my own patience, in laying open such a gallimaufry of shallow impertinences; and, I fear, my Reader also, who may think his time ill-employ'd in perusing the confutation of so weak a Writer.

SECT. 1.

THis Champion of Schism having (as he thought) empal'd the Universal Juris­diction of St. Peter to the dispersed Iews onely; proceeds, laying first his own mistakes for his grounds, in this fifth Chapter to depose the Pope, which he entitles thus, The Evidences from the Bishop of Romes succeeding Saint Peter, examined; as he did the fore-going Chapter, The pretended Evidences of the Romanists, &c. Where, first, he would per­swade many good honest Readers, that he had urged our Evidences home, and afterwards salved them; whereas indeed he onely puts down a word or two of our bare tenet, and that not even as we explicate it, much less as we evi­dence it.

[Page 106]Secondly, He would seem to intimate again, that, it belongs to us to evidence; Let the Doctor know, the Churches Evidence is her long-and-quietly enjoy'd possession of the be­lief of Infallibility; in which, she was actually found when his upstart and disobedient Fore­fathers, the first Reformers, went out from her-Communion. POSSIDEO, QUIA POSSI­DEO; OLIM POSSIDEO, PRIOR POSSI­DEO, is all the Evidence, and all the reason she is bound to give to her rebel-sons and out-law­ed Subjects. So as it is your part to evidence, hers to hold and possess her own, till you suffi­ciently, that is, demonstrably, evidence her title to be unjust.

Thirdly, The Doctor is here also, as indeed generally every where, contrary to himself, in­scribing the Chapters, as answers to our Evi­dences, yet spending almost the whole Chapters in producing pretended Evidences of his own; so performing the quite contrary to what he promised. But this is nothing with him.

His first Paragraph sayes onely, That St. Peter C. 5. S. 1. having no Primacy, the Bishop of Rome his Suc­cessor, could consequently have none. But be­cause his Antecedent hath already been dash'd in peeces by my Answer to his former Chapter, no Consequence can be built upon it, till he have repaired his ground-work by a stronger Reply. Yet Mr. Hammond is so self-conceitedly confident of the invincibleness of his former Chapter, that he accounts this a work of Supe­rerogation. Whereas, if to prove his first Evi­dence, he hath produced any one express Testi­mony, That St. Peters Iurisdiction was limited to the Iews onely, which onely was the thing [Page 107] in question; or if to prove his second EVI­DENCE, he hath produced any one express place to prove, That the Keys (though given to all) yet were not more particularly given to St. Peter (which onely is there the thing in question,) I will quit the field, and yeeld, though not my cause, yet my own particular conquer'd. But if he have not, what a vanity is it to brag, when he had said nothing at all to the Controversie, that he hath said all that is necessary, nay, even supererogated, and said more then needs.

In this second Paragraph, the Doctor would evidence, That the Priviledges attending St. Pe­ters succession, belong rather to the Bishop of Antioch, then of Rome. And this he endeavors by asking three Questions, to which I shall answer in or­der.

First, he asks, Whether St. Peter did not as C. 5. S. 2. truly plant a Church of Iewish believers at Antioch, and leave a Successor Bishop there, as at Rome he is supposed to have done.

I answer, If you mean he planted a Church there of Iewish believers onely, so as he had no power over the Gentiles also, I absolutely deny it; and in your last Chapter, your pro­per place to prove it in, you had not one word to bless your self with, but what you added of your own. That he left a Successor Bishop there. If you mean such an improperly call'd Successor, as both himself and St. Paul left in many other places, that is, made some one a Bishop, and left him to overlook and govern that Church, I easily grant; but if you mean such a Successor as should succeed in the amplitude of Saint Peters authority, so as St. Peter should devest [Page 108] himself of his Primacy, and give it him, not carrying it along with him to Rome, I deny he left there any such kinde of Successor, neither can there be the least shadow of Reason, why he should; nor is there any Testimony or Ground that he did.

Your second Quere is, Whether this were not done by him, before ever he came to Rome?

I answer, in the manner I have declared, doubtless he did.

Your third Quere is, Whether these two Con­cessions do not devolve all power and jurisdiction on the Bishop of Antioch, St. Peters Successor there, which by that tenure and claim of Succession from St. Peter, can be pretended to by the Bishop of Rome?

I answer, the first is not a Concession, unless first distinguished, as I shewed before; and the distinction given, intercepts the passage to his Conclusion.

To manifest which the better, we may distin­guish in St. Peter, resident at Antioch, two di­verse qualities of dignity: First, his particular care of that Church, as private Bishop in that See: Secondly, his publick office of Head of the Church, in which, consists his Primacy. Now when he left that City and went to Rome, he devested himself of the private care of that Church, and so it was necessary he should sub­stitute another in the charge of that private Bishoprick; but did not devest himself of the dignity of chief of the Apostles; and so no pretence can be competent to his substitute in Antioch. This dignity annexed to his person by our B. Saviour, went along with him, whi­thersoever he went, and remained with him [Page 109] living; so that onely he who succeeded him dying (the Bishop of Rome) could claim the inheritance of that sacred Dignity, which no­thing but his blessed Predecessors death could delegate unto him. At Rome he died, and was by dying devested; where he was devested, there was necessary a succession into the dignity, which he left, and was wanting by his death to the whole Church: This was his Primacy. This therefore must be the title of his truly called Successor there, and no pretence left for his substitute at Antioch made in his life time.

Most vain then is the Doctors conceit of the primogeniture in Antioch, unless he could prove St. Peter died there; in vain are his self-affirm­ed, and onely-self-proved positions in his third Section, to this purpose. In vain his assertion in the beginning of the fourth, That if Rome derived any authority from the succession of St. Peter. Antioch, must for the same reason be preferred before Alexandria; since St. Peter onely con­stituted there a Successor to himself in the dig­nity which he then stript himself of, that is, of the private charge of that Church; which being onely an ordinary office, and no particularity resulting from St. Peters personal authority; it had consequently from the force of such a sub­stitute instalment, nothing to elevate it beyond the pitch of an ordinary Bishoprick; and so it remained▪ liable upon convenient Reasons afterwards ensuing, to be ranked after Alex­andria.

This bolt then falling short of the mark, he C. 5. S. 4. is resolved at length to shoot home, and for his better advantages, stalks under the patronage [Page 110] of the Council of Chalcedon; citing a Canon thereof, That the See of Constantinople shall have [...], equal priviledges, dignities, and advantages with Rome, upon this account, That Constantinople was new Rome, and the seat of the Empire at that time; which, say they, was the rea­son, that Rome enjoyed such priviledges; and there­fore [...]. The Fathers at Constantinople being moved with the same Reasons, had rightly judged, That now the same priviledges should belong to that Church or City. [...], And that this being next to old Rome, should in all Eccle­siastical affairs have the same dignity or greatness that old Rome had. Thus far the Doctor.

Where, first, I would ask him how he knows that [...], signifies the Primacy; are there no kinde of priviledges, but of equality in Jurisdiction.

Next, I would know why [...], can exact no other interpretation but AS SHE, must needs be interpreted, as much as she, or have the same dignity or greatness; deducing an equality or identity from the particle [...], which onely denotes a similitude or likeness.

Thirdly, I must chide Mr. Doctor, (and with very good reason too) for Englishing [...], in ALL Ecclesiastick businesses, whereas there is no such word as All in the Council; and in this word All, purpose­ly added by the Doctor, consists the most effi­cacious part of the Testimony. For the wor [...] ALL may include possibly the authority o [...] Primacy it self, which no other word there al­leaged, can in any way signifie. But the Do­ctors [Page 111] Pen is still very free to let down Ink, when any thing of importance is to be added to a Testimony.

Fourthly, [...] signifying nothing but certain honorary, pompous, or ceremonious priviledges, which might have accrued to some Church, by the residence of the supreme Secular power there. I see no necessity why the Popes Legates might not omit to oppose the reason there given, for the collation of these [...]; whereas had the word signified Primacy, which was then as strongly and expresly pretended to come from Christs donation to St. Peter (as is evident in Pope Leo's Epistles, whose Legates presided in this Council) as it is now by these present Popes, then we should have heard an­other story.

Fifthly, The Doctor grants, that this Decree C. 5. S. 5. was as derogatory to the dignity of Antioch as Rome; but it is evident, that Antioch pretended to no Primacy over the whole Church: Evi­dent therefore it is from the Doctors own Con­cession, That [...] could not signifie Primacy of Jurisdiction, neither consequently was that struck at by the tumultuous Constanti­nopolitans

Sixtly, The very Council where this was handled, calls and acknowledges Rome the first; which the Doctor will interpret a precedency of order onely, and this he will grant she re­tain'd notwithstanding these equal priviledges arrogated to Constantinople, if then [...] equal priviledges, may be supposed to be given to another, Romes precedency and priori­ty in order remaining untouched; why should we think, or indeed, how can we think that [Page 112] that word meant the Primacy, or that this was concerned in the Decree, being much higher then the former; since this was sacred, the other complementary; this ever held as not possible to come otherwise then from Christs especial donation, whereas that might have probably proceeded from Ecclesiastical Con­stitution.

Seventhly, The Doctor (onely proceeding upon a whimsie born and bred in his own brain) tells us, pag. 99. that [...] sig­nifies a Patriarchate, and the pomps attending it, and that Canstantinople wanted onely the dignity of a Patriarchate to be equal to Rome. Which is a most gross mistake, and plainly demonstrating, That the Doctor took this Testimony, as he found it dropt from the Pen of some petty Writer, and never [...]etcht it from the Fountains of ancient History it self: For it is certain, and by all acknowledged, That Constantinople was a Patriarchate before, but the fourth; and now pretended to be the second, and so make Alex­andria the third, and Antioch the fourth. Yet the Doctor runs on upon this ground, and igno­rant of the truth of the history, winks and fights most cruelly; paying the Primacy of Rome with his own sayings, even to utter de­solation, till he comes to the end of the Para­graph.

Eighthly, It is manifest by the History and Acts of the Council it self, That this was no free Act, nor ever came off clear: The ambition of the Clergy of Constantinople, extorting it with a tumultuous importunity; it being voted after most of the Fathers were departed, and onely those of the party of Constantinople left to [Page 113] determine in their own behalf, what they or their instigators pleased; whereupon it was contradicted and exclaimed against vehemently the next day, by the Western Church, in the Popes Legates; disavowed and rejected by the Patriarch of Antioch, and those under him. No Patriarch of Alexandria was there; and all the Metropolitans and Bishops under him, refused to subscribe. The Act it self, not numbred a­mongst the Acts of the Council; till ambition, which, at first, receiving such a check from so grave Authority, was modest, growing more impudent, when the reprehending and curbing power was absent, legitimated that bastard­issue, and pin'd it to the end of the Council, as Dr. Hammond does his own sayings to the end of his Testimonies.

Yet the Doctor tells us, He could vindicate the C. 9. S. 9. validity of this Canon, but that he means not to go out of his way. Is it out of your way, Mr. Doctor, to vindicate that Testimony to be valid, which you object for a strong proof against us, and we reject as of insufficient Authority and ille­gitimate. In my poor judgment, it lies so di­rectly in your way, that you cannot possibly do your cause better service, then to clear this point; else why did you produce a Testimony lying under a just Exception, unless you would stick to it, and maintain it. It lay in your way, it seems, to put that large-senc'd monosyllable ALL into the Testimony, that was just in your way, but to make good your own weak Alle­gation, was quite out of your way. Yet you were something excusable from under-propping your Testimony, if you had been better em­ploy'd in the mean time; but I finde the whole [Page 114] fifth Paragraph, in which you wave it, from the beginning to the end, made up onely of your own sayings, and some of those too false; up­on which (as upon grounds) you proceed with an unresistable career. So as your proofs are perfect Cobwebs; both the ground and the work upon it, being spun out of your own bowels.

But instead of vindicating it, you first quar­rel C. 5. S. 5. with us for strange dealing in not admitting any Testimony against us, but wherein we have given our own suffrage, which you call A method of secu­rity, beyond all amulets, &c. Thus the Doctor, plausibly indeed, if his Readers were fools, o­therwise nothing can sound more unconsonant­ly. For either the Pope is head of the Church, or no: If he suppose negatively, then he plain­ly begs the Question which hangs yet in dis­pute; and then, upon this supposition, I will grant it is not onely strange dealing, but injustice, usurpation, tyranny, impiety, or whatever he will; or else the Pope was and is Head of the Church; and then, the Doctors words may be objected as well to any Governor, or any man living, as to the Pope; and it is not strange deal­ling, but very good reason, That he should re­fuse to subscribe to an Act, endamaging the Ca­nons of the Church, it being his duty and ob­ligation to keep them inviolate. And if Pope Leo could in reason reject it then, when one siding and self-interessed part of the Council had voted it; we can with as good reason re­ject it now, when Dr. Hammond alleages it.

SECT. 2.

THe Doctors next EVIDENCE, that the Pope is not Head of the Church, is from a Canon in the Council of Ephesus; where (saith Mr. Hammond) the independency of Cyprus, not onely from the Patriarch of Antioch, but from all others whomsoever was contested then, as from the Apostles times, &c. Thus the Doctor desirous to make the Reader believe that Cyprus had no kinde of Dependency on any one whomsoever. Though the Testimony it self contests no more, but that from the Apostles time they could never show, That the Bishop of Antioch was there, Et ordinaverit vel communicaverit unquam Insulae ordination is gratiam, neque alius quisquam, that is, And ordain'd or conferred the grace of Ordi­nation upon that I [...]and, nor any other. The Testi­mony speaks onely, That neither the Patriarch, nor any other ordained there, the Doctor inter­prets it, That Cyprus was independent on the Pa­triarch of Antioch, or any one whomsoever. Which is not ingenuously done; for there may be a dependency of subjection to the Jurisdiction of another, though they never received from that other their Ordination. Thus you see, the Doctor sel­dom brings us an account of any Testimony, but less or more he will be sure to enflame the reckoning.

But the Council exempted Cyprus from the peculiar subjection to a private Patriarch in par­ticular: True, but is there any thing exprest there, That either Cyprus or the Patriarch of Antioch himself, were exempted from the Obe­dience or Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, [Page 116] as Publick Head of the Church, or was the Popes Primacy there called in question. This should have been exprest to make good your inference. But of this, we have not so much as a syllable, nor any thing that can deduce it; since the Ile of Cyprus might well have been exempted from the obedience of any particular Patriarch, and yet both it, and the Patriarchs themselves sub­jected to one Chief or Head of the Church: As there may be some free State or City in Europe independent of any particular Kingdom or Province, and yet both that State, and all the Kingdoms and Provinces in Europe, dependent or subject to the Universal Rule of an Emperor, who is Lord of the whole.

Yet the Doctor hath not done with us thus, C. 5. S. 6. he hath another fling at us out of this Council of Ephesus, which determined (saith the Do­ctor) That no Bishop shall encroach upon anothers Province, or usurp a power, where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it. Which how directly (adds the Doctor) it prejudgeth the pretensions of Rome, is so manifest, that it cannot need farther demonstrating. This therefore being Dr. Ham­monds, PRIMUM PRINCIPIUM, first Princi­ple, which is so evident by the light of nature, and cannot need farther demonstrating, it were not amiss, if we put it in a Syllogism; to let the Reader see how unavoidably the Doctor dedu­ces a break-neck conclusion to the cause of Rome out of it. The Argument then stands thus.

The Canon of Ephesus constitutes, That n [...] Bishop shall encroach upon anothers Province, o [...] usurp a power, where from the Apostles time h [...] had not enjoyed it: [Page 117]But the Pope ( must Dr. Hammond sub­sume) hath encroacht upon anothers Province, and usurpt a power, where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it.

Therefore, his pretensions are prejudi­ced by this Canon of Ephesus.

Where, as every childe may see, nothing fol­lows out of the words of the Council against the Pope (which are the Major) until the Do­ctor makes good his Minor, That the Pope hath thus encroached, &c. Yet this (being all that belongs to him to prove) he either supposes as a first principle, though it be the onely thing in controversie, or else begs of us to grant him gratis; and then tells us the Conclusion is so manifest, it cannot need farther demonstrating,

Surely he was afraid here also to go out of his way; and with good reason, for had he gone a­bout to evidence his Minor, he would never have arrived at his Conclusion.

After this most palpable and evident de­monstration, C. 5. S. 7. he gives us two instances of the same alloy: One of the Archbishop of Carthage, whom the Emperor Iustinian made equal in priviledges to the Bishop of Iustiniana Prima▪ the other of this last named Bishop himself, to whom the Constitution grants, Omnem censuram Ecclesiasticam, summum Sacerdotium, summum fastigium, summam dignitatem: All Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction, the supreme Priesthood, supreme Dig­nity. These words sound high, and (as the Doctor thinks) terribly to us: But first he must consider, that Iustinians Constitution is no Decree of a Council, nor his fact (in case he had pretended it) able to invalidate that sacred dignity of Head of the Church, had any such [Page 118] been constituted by our Saviour. Next he never intended any such matter as to crop the aspi­ring growth of Rome, (as the Doctor imagines) which is manifest by his sending to Pope Vigi­lius (as strong a pretender of the Primacy as any of his Successors) to bestow a Pall upon his new Archbishop of Iustiniana prima; nor would Pope Vigilius have consecrated him Bi­shop (as the Doctor shufflingly grants he did) upon these terms; neither was it Iustinians pretence, who onely meant to exempt him from the Jurisdictions of them, whose Patri­archates heretofore extended to that Pro­vince.

But let us come to the Testimony it self; ei­ther the words, All Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction, supreme Priesthood, and supreme Honor, must mean a supremacy over the whole Church, or in his own particular Diocess. If over the whole Church. Iustinian constituted him Pope; which no man in his wits will say, If over his own Diocess onely, he might be supreme there, and yet subject to the Pope too, as is visible de facto, even nowadays▪

The next Testimony is from an old mouse­eaten Manuscript, concerning the Authority of the said Archbishop, forbidding Appeals to any other, in these words, Tu & omnes Justini­anae primae Antistites, quicquid oriatur inter e [...]s discrimen, ipsi hoc dirimant & finem eis imponant & nec ad alium quendam eatur, sed suum agnoscant Archiepiscopum omnes praedictae Provinciae. What Authority this Manuscript is of (for the Latin shews, is to be of no Antiquity nor Humanity) I know not, having not seen the Book, it being hard to be found, and therefore a fit ground for [Page 119] an invisible doctrine. But this I know, it was pat for the Doctors Logick, which was to be besides the purpose. For here is nothing said, which was not common to the Patriarch, and such Metropolitans as Cyprus was, to wit, That they had no ordinary Appeal farther, as gene­rally was none from any other Patriarch, unless peradventure Ierusalem, which was onely an honorary Patriarchate. Yet this no ways hin­ders, but that extraordinary cases, which could not be ended among themselves, should be car­ried to Rome, such as are controversies betwixt the Metropolitan himself, and the Bishops his subjects, or betwixt him and some stranger Bi­shop or Patriarch: So that all this Testimony is quite different from the case we handle, and leaves this Bishop as subject to the Pope, as any of the Patriarchs, or any out of the Patriarchate of the West was.

But our kinde Doctor is so free-hearted, he would not part without shaking hands, and do­ing us some good turn, and so was pleased to determine the question for us, in his next Cita­tion▪ which is out of the 131 of Novel, of Iustinian, c. 3. and the sense of it is, That he should be in all that Diocess, the Popes Legate, which now we call to be Legatus Natus; and in Catholick times, was a thing annexed to the Bishoprick of Canterbury: Wherein two things are clear, one, that his Diocess remained not­withstanding all these priviledges, subject to the Pope; and that to magnifie his dignity, this was necessary to make him the Popes Delegate, as it was also divers times used to the very Pa­triarchs; to whose dignity all these priviledges did not elevate Iustiniana prima, though they [Page 120] exempted it from them. Iustinians words are, that in all that Diocess he shall have Locum A­postolicae sedis; which the Doctor, (not to seem an open prevaricator against his own party) translates the place or dignity of an Apostolical Seat; whereas he should have said, the place or lieu of the Apostolical Seat; that is, should be the Popes substitute. And I pray (good Doctor) where did you read the Greek [...] explica­ted for honor or dignity? And in what History do you finde such a dignity, as an Apostolical Seat in common? What dignity had Ephesus for St. Iohus sitting in it, that the like should be given to Iustiniana?

He goes on and tells us this was the occasion, why Nicephorus said the Emperor had made it a free City, and [...], which to make more efficacious, he explicates with full power, independent from all others. We shall never out of the old Proverb, The properer man, the worse luck; He must needs be doing against himself, for this word convinces all the Doctors process of nullity: For since Nicephorus speaks not of the City onely as an Ecclesiastical State, but also as a Temporal one, and that by being made free and self headed, he exempted it not from the Emperor by parity; these words do not ex­empt it in Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from the Pope, whose power is as Universal as the Em­perors, and extends it self much farther.

The Doctor was not so blinde, but he saw the Consecration of the first Metropolitan by the Pope, did stand in his way: Therefore to leap over this block, he tells us, it was necessary he should be consecrated by some body; and that it is evident, being consecrated, he was inde­pendent, [Page 121] and his Successors to be ordained by his Council of Metropolitans. It is a hard case, that this good Doctor cannot speak three words, but one must unravel what the other knit. His excuse, why the Pope consecrated the first Bishop, was, Because some body must do it; and presently after, he tells us, Not the Pope, but the Suffragans were to consecrate his Successor. I pray then Master Doctor, why could not the Metropolitans have consecrated the first, as well as the others, if that signifie independency? But that is not our Argument, nor do we think Consecration implies depen­dency. But the Argument we make from Vigi­lius his consecrating him, is from two heads which the Doctor either saw not, or thought not fitting his Reader should see. The first is, That it draws a main consequence of the Popes consenting to this erection, and so absolutely evacuates the Doctors Argument. The other is, That he did not onely consecrate him, but give him a Pall, which act was a sign of Superi­ority, and a kinde of Benediction, and at least an Honor, if not a Jurisdiction. True it is, all this is nothing, if it be evident, that after Consecration he was absolute, as the Doctor affirms, and all are to believe, who will take his word for their faith.

In the next Paragraph, he tells us, That this particularity that his Successors were to be con­secrated by their Council of Metropolitans, is a second instance of the point in hand; and I do not deny, but sometimes to be subject for Ordination, was sign of subjection, but not al­ways. The Bishop of Ostia hath the priviledge to consecrate the Pope, yet the Pope is not [Page 122] to be his subject: The Council of Sardica ordains, That the next Province shall give Bishops to a Province that wants, yet makes not that Province subject to it: The Patriarch of Alexandria gave the Indians Bishops, yet claimed no jurisdiction over them; and con­secrated the Patriarch of Constantinople, yet was not Constantinople in his Territories. Therefore this is no rule of Subjection, and if it were, the Doctor must say this Primate was subject to his own Suffragans. Neither did ever Popes or Patriarchs in ancient times, demand the Or­dination of all the Bishops in their Patriarch­ates; nor does the Pope at this day, demand it in other Patriarchates, though he claim juris­diction over them.

But now, who can tell us what the Doctor means, when he says the Emperor did all this onely by making it a Primates, or chief Metro­politans See; and that Carthages being the prime Metropolis of Africk, is expressed by ha­ving the same priviledges with Prima Iustiniana. Can any man think he intendeth other then to mock his Auditory? For as far as I understand, these words signifie, that the Emperor said one­ly, Be thou a chief Metropolis; and in so saying, gave all these Priviledges: Whereas all the Doctors labor hitherto, and the Texts by him cited, wherein every priviledge is set down so particularly, make it manifest, there were none or not eminent examples of any such Cities or Bishopricks; and therefore so many particu­larities were necessary to be expressed, and it be made an example to others: Yet upon this relieth the Doctors main evidence, and demon­stration. Though, if you will believe him▪ [Page 123] The conclusion of it self is most certain, and might otherwise be testified by innumerable Evidences; which we ought to suppose the Doctor omits for brevities sake, and contents himself with this riff-raff, and his Readers with bold pro­mises and solemn affirmations.

In his tenth Section, immediately following, he draws out of his so strong discourse, a con­sequence able to make any sensible man under­stand the former discourses, were all vain and wicked: For says he, If from the Apostles time there hath been an independent power vested in each Primate, or chief Metropolitan; then how can it be necessary to the being of a Member of the Catholick Church, to be subject to that one Primate. Wor­thy Doctor, your inference is very strong and good. But I pray consider what is the conse­quent: Surely this▪ If there be no Catholick Church, the obedience to the Pope, is not necessary to be a member of it. A very learned conclusion, and worthy of so long a discourse to introduce it; yet see whether it be yours or no. You say, every chief Metropolitan was independent from all others, they made there­fore so many absolute Churches; therefore made not any one Church. Where then is the Catholick Church, of which we ought to be members? Many houses to be one house, is as fairly contradictory, as many men, or horses to be one horse; and so of many Churches, to be one Church. A Church (saith St. Cyprian) is a people united to their Bishop. If then there be a Catholick Church, there must be a Catholick Bishop; and taking away the obedience to one Bishop, you cannot save one Church. I know you can talk like a Saint, That Christ is the [Page 124] Head in which all Churches are united: But the Church is a Government upon Earth, and as an Army with its General, or a Commonwealth with its chief Magistrate in Heaven; were no Army, nor Commonwealth: So without sub­jection to a visible supreme Pastor, there will be no Church on Earth left us, whereof we ought to be Members; which is the true Protestant Tenet, whatsoever they may shuffle in words, an art wherein they are the most eminent of all Modern Hereticks. Therefore he had reason to enlarge himself no farther, but conclude with the Authority of his Convocation, An. 1537. To which, I confess my self unable to answer; for it is a pregnant and unavoidable Testimony: Onely I may remember our old English Proverb, Ask my fellow, whether I am a Thief; or ask Caiphas, whether Pilates sentence against our Saviour, was not just. You know it was a Convocation of Bishops, who for fear, re­nounced their Oaths taken in their Consecra­tion; and therefore men of no credit, upon their pure words in this case. Now their Ar­guments are no other, then what are already discussed, that is, meer Cobwebs woven out of a tainted heart: Besides, those who supervived that wicked King, for the most part, with hearty penance, washed away that crime; and with their tears blotted out, as far as in them lay, the black Indentures of that dismal Contract.

SECT. 3.

THe Doctor proceeding in his own mistaking method, which is, to produce faintly, and then impugn our Pleas, in stead of pleading for himself, who stands accused of Schism, en­titles his sixth Chapter, THEIR THIRD PLEA FROM THE BISHOP OF ROMES HAVING PLANTED CHRISTIANITY AMONG US: As if we pretended the Conversion of this Na­tion, to have been the reason, why the Pope challenged here the Supremacy; or, That his being Head of the Universal Church, depended upon his private Apostleship, performed towards this Nation.

This is the ground of all his ensuing Chapter, which being absolutely false, and forged upon us, it had been sufficient to have past it over with this civil reproof, Doctor you mistake.

For what Catholick Author ever affirmed, the Pope is beholden to his Ancestors care in bringing England to Christs Faith, for his su­preme jurisdiction there; or that his title of Primacy had not been equal in this Countrey, in case it had hapned Constantinople or Alexandria had sent to convert it? We will therefore free the Doctor from any obligation of Subjection to [Page 126] the Popes Primacy, which he causlesly fears may come by this title▪ so he will acquit him­self, and the Church of England, of another which lies heavy on them, and makes up the full measure of their Schism, unless they retract it. For if greatest benefits, draw on greatest engagements; and no benefit be so great, as that which rescues us from the Devils tyranny, the the bonds of Infidelity; and brings us, by en­larging our hearts by Faith, into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God: Sure no Obligati­on can be conceived so indispensably-binding, as that which is due to those who were Authors to us, of so inestimable a good. This conside­ration should make the enjoyers of that benefit, while they were sons to such a Mother, more humble and obedient, in an especial manner, and by consequence in an high measure, aggra­vate the horrid sin of Schism, in not onely re­belliously, but most ingratefully abandoning the communion of so tenderly beneficial a Pa­rent. This should make them after the breach made (though they cannot yet so overcome their proper-will, and proper-judgment, as to return) at least, candidly to acknowledge the benefits received from her, and to bear her a due respect; however▪ not to revile and re­proach her. But against all History, and onely out of a few obscure and unauthentick sayings, to disacknowledge your highest obligation to her; in stead of grateful courtesie, to slight, and contemn her; to naturalize in the hearts of your poor Auditors, an hatred against the very name of Rome, and the Pope (to which, Rome and its Pope, you and they, are behold­ing, next, and immediately under God, for [Page 127] all the knowledge you have of Christ, or his holy Word:) Lastly, To revile that Church, which (till you broke from her) had ever the most sacred title of Christs onely Spouse, with your scolding Sermon-invectives (grateful ele­gancies to your applauding hearers) of Idola­trous, Antichristian, Strumpet, Whore of Babylon, and all the venemous spiteful expressions, that ever were vomited from a malice-imposthum'd heart: These things, I say, are they which brand you beyond infamy in the judgment of prudent men, and double Dy the dark-colour­ed sin of Schism, with the deepest tincture of the blackest ingratitude. Of this ingratitude, Master Doctor, clear your selves, first in break­ing, next in your carriage and comportment ever since, and we will without much difficul­ty, disoblige you from any other duty, which you seem afraid you ow us, upon onely that score of Conversion.

Yet you will needs have us hold, whether we will or no, That the Pope is Head of the Church, because his Predecessor converted England: And this ground laid in the air of your own fancy, you impugn as inconsequent­ly, butting at us most formidably with a Dilem­ma, or cornuted Syllogism; and telling us, That C. 6. S. 2, 3. the Popes Primacy in this Iland, is either from the Donation of Christ, or Conversion by Austin the Monk: If the latter, then England was not sub­ject to the Pope before Austin' s coming: If the former, then is that other title of the Conversion by Austin, a fallacious pretence, A NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA, &c. This is the sum of his Di­lemma.

In answer to which, I confess indeed, the [Page 128] latter title is, A fallacious pretence, A NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA; but the fallacy is on the Doctors side, who feigns us to pretend what we never thought on; to wit, That the Popes supremacy is grounded on any such title. One of the horns then of his Dilemma, is a false one, and so the danger of being catcht between them, easily avoided.

Nor is his Dilemma it self, more solidly found­ed, were both the particular pretences true; for it wholly insists and leans upon this Positi­on, That no man can claim a possession upon two titles: On which ground (to let us see he is a Lawyer, as well as a Divine) he descants in these words, He that claims a reward, as of his C. 6. S. 2. own labor and travail, must be supposed to disclaim Donation, which is antecedent to, and exclusive of the former; as the title of descent is of that of conquest. Thus this Doctor of Law. Whereas, what more ordinary then to plead two titles at Law, (as for example, birth-right, and a for­merly-given judgment) for the same thing? Or, what more unreasonable then to affirm, That Iacob who wrought other seven years for Ra­chel, could not claim her as a reward of his ser­vice for that time, unless he renounce his right to her due at the former years end. Do not we see daily, That those who have palpable right to their estate, when they cannot quietly enjoy it otherwise, by reason of the injustice of a wrangling adversary, are forced to compound for, and buy their own, without [...]isclaiming their former title?

Neither is his last instance more solid, then its fellows, That the title of descent is exclusive to that of conquest; since the titles of Donation [Page 129] and Conquest, are as opposite as those he men­tions, and yet it is well known, That William the Conqueror pretended a right to the King­dom upon both these titles; and Henry the Se­venth (if I mistake not) upon three. But the thing is so clear, that it requires no further proof; save onely to advertise the Reader, That Dr. Hammond is the first Lawyer I ever heard of, who denied a possibility of a double title to the same thing: Yet I am glad to see by the Doctors perfect ignorance, and utter unac­quaintance in Law, that he is, at least, a good, honest, quiet, sober soul; not used much to trouble himself with Law, nor wrangle with his Neighbors; which is a very great commen­dation, and better beseeming his innocent Na­ture, which was never shaped to be a Contro­vertist.

Next, proceeding still on his own false grounds, he goes about, first, ingratefully to deny, that St. Austin the Monk converted our Forefathers: Secondly, After some acknow­ledgment, to prove very unmannerly and un­civilly, no thanks due.

As for the first, he tells us, That this Iland C. [...]. S. 4. was converted to the Faith of Christ, long before Augustines Preaching to the Saxons; citing many Authors for it. Where if by the word Iland, he mean the Ilanders, as I suppose he must; I would then ask him, (though the former Iland­ers were before converted by the Missionaries of Pope Eleutherius, yet) whether those that St. Augustin was sent to convert, that is, the Saxons were reduced before that time to Chri­stianity, or no; if they were not (as I am sure he must, and will acknowledge) all the ancient [Page 130] Inhabitants, the Britains, being driven by them into Wales; then what a perversness and want of ingenuity is it in Master Hammond, to wave so ungratefully, that incomparable benefit which we Englishmen received in our Ance­stors, by the Popes fatherly care, first convert­ed to Christs Faith? and what a pitiful shift it is, to shew a willingness to put it off by quib­bling in the words, this Iland; as if they did not signifie these Ilanders, or the Ilanders of the same race; but these Trees, Woods, and Moun­tains.

The next page goes on very currantly, and without any rub, proving, That the formerly­planted Faith of Christ, in this Iland, was not totally extinguished by the ancient persecuti­ons; so to infer a less beholdingness of us Eng­lishmen to Rome, and Pope Gregory the Great for our Conversion; but all in vain▪ For un­less he proves, that they who had formerly em­braced and retained that Faith, propagated it to the after-comers, the Saxons, (who were Ancestors to us Englishmen) or that St. Austin was not the first that preached to these, (which he will never do) all the evidence he can bring from hence is, to prove himself ungrateful.

Then he ends this Paragraph with a Testi­mony out of the old obscure Annals of Gis­burn, and brought to light by one of his own side, in which it is said, That the Bishop of St. Davids was consecrated by the Suffragan Bishops o [...] that Province, Nulla penitus professione vel sub­jectione factâ alteri Ecclesiae. No profession or sub­jection at all being made to another Church. Where first, I would ask the Doctor in which of these words he places most force; in, Their Consecra­tion [Page 131] by their own Suffragans, and by no other? What difficulty in this? As if the Pope could not be Head of the Church, but he must needs consecrate all the Bishops in the World; yet more then once the Doctor hath bob'd us with this: Or is it in these words, Nullâ penitus, &c. No profession, &c? As little follows hence; for the custom of making a profession, or ex­hibiting subjection to the See of Rome, when the Bishops were consecrated (exprest in those words, facere subjectionem) was not then in use; and though it were not now, it would not at all prejudice the amplitude of the Popes Jurisdiction, as Head of the Church. Besides, the words being Alteri Ecclesiae, To another Church; not specifying Rome in particular, it affords no­thing express for the Doctors purpose; but may well bear the interpretation of the Bishop of St. Davids being independent of any within that Continent, or (as before was said of Cy­prus) of any private Patriarch: With which, as is evident, may well consist a subjection to the Pope, as the Churches chief and Universal Pastor.

To what follows in the fifth Section of the Abbot of Bangors answer, who flatly denied subjection to the Pope of Rome: First, we reply, It matters not much what the old Abbot said; for every one who hath read those Histo­ries, knows the ill-will of the Britains was so extreme against the Saxons, at St. Austins com­ing; th [...] apprehension of their tyrannous u­surping their Country, and driving them out of their own being, then [...]lagrant and fresh in their memories, That they refused to joyn with St▪ Austin for the salvation of their Souls. And [Page 132] they might probably be afraid, lest admitting and coming under Saint Augustins Jurisdiction, they might open a gap for the further en­croachment of their late cruel persecutors. Neither was it hard to imagin, seeing the Bri­tains ever since Aetius came to assist them, by reason of the turmoils of the Empire, and several incursions of barbarous Nations, had little or no commerce with Rome: A remote Abbot, whose office is to look to his own pri­vate Monastery, should be ignorant of what was due to the chief Pastor of the Church, e­specially other as great errors being crept in among that Nation. But what's all this to us? unless the Doctor can prove that, whereas the whole Christian world held the then Pope, Gregory the Great, Head of the Church, as ap­pears by his Epistles to all Churches. This Ab­bot did well in denying that Authority which all else granted, and submitted to; or that this Abbot communicated with them, who ad­mitted and acknowledged it. For we do not undertake to defend, that there could not be at any time two, three, or more persons, who either out of disgust, ambition, interest, or ignorance, might speak or act against the Popes Authority, but that it was the profession of the then Catholick Church▪

The words therefore of this Abbot can make nothing against us, unless the Doctor will un­dertake to vindicate him from ignorance and interest, and that out of settled and imprejudi­ced Reason, he in so saying, pronounced the sence of the whole Catholick Church.

Yet I have not done with this story of the Abbot thus; I alleage moreover, that it is [Page 133] either absolutely fa [...]ulous, or else, both all an­cient Histories, and (which is more) Doctor Hammond himself is mistaken; and therefore however it may possibly be true, yet can claim no credit if it be once taken in a lie. It makes the Abbot in the close of his blunt Speech, af­firm, Nos sumus, &c. We are under the rule of the C. 6. S. 5. Bishop of Caerlegion upon Usk, who is to over­look and govern us under God. Whereas it is manifest there was no such Bishoprick at that time; it being translated in King Arthurs days▪ which was fifty years before this, from Caer­usk to St. Davids, as the Doctor himself grants in the foregoing Paragraph.

But for a more full and perfect answer to this upstart instance of that ancient Nation (if what I have said, suffice not) I desire the Read­ers perusal of the ingenuous and solid Appendix to that excellent Manual of Controversies, lately composed by the Learned H. T. where I be­lieve he will finde this new piece of Antiquity irrecoverably confuted.

What follows in the sixth Paragraph, is one­ly a conclusion out of what he hath said, That the whole Iland is not Schismatical, because St. Augustine converted not the whole. Where first he onely proves the Welshmen no Schis­maticks, but still leaves himself and his Fel­low-Englishmen (whom he ought to have cleared first) in the suds. Nay, though the Britains were not then Schismaticks upon that account, not being converted by St. Augustine, yet now being subjected to the English Bishops, and incorporated into their Church, if this Church be proved Schismatical: The Welsh­men, who are Sons, Subjects, depending on. [Page 134] and a part of her must needs incur the same censure. Besides, his premises being all invali­dated, and his grounds wrongly laid, his con­clusion must needs be weak and ruinous: For we do not accuse him of the substance of Schism, for refusing obedience to the Pope, as his Successor, who sent to convert England; but as Successor to him, who had the Primacy by the Donation of Christs own mouth: How­ever, the former may render the rupture more enormous, seeing that part of Christs Seamless­coat was close knit to the whole, by such a near and firm obligation.

SECT. 4.

BY this time the Doctor, through Gods assist­ance, C. 6. S. 7. and his Readers Christian patience, is come to the second part of his Text; which is, that even this part of the Iland, which was converted by St. Austin, cannot entitle the Pope to Supremacy over them. Where, to omit that his whole grounds are erroneous (as I have be­fore manifested) in supposing that to be our Plea sor the Popes Primacy, let us see, at least, how consequently he handles it. To prove his po­sition, he tells us, The Nations converted by St. Ibid. Paul, were not to be ever subject to that Chair, where St. Paul sate? Good Mr. Doctor inform [Page 135] us what you intend by the Chair, where Saint Paul sate: Whether in the Church of Antioch, or Rome, or the like, say you.

But first, it is meerly a fiction that St. Paul ever sate in any Chair, or was fixt Bishop in any place, but at Rome onely with St. Peter▪ and to demand whether all Countreys convert­ed by him, ought to be subject to his Successor there (that is, to the Pope, who succeeded both him, and St. Peter) is onely in another phrase to ask over again the Question of the whole Book, and is the same, as if he should ask whe­ther the Pope be Head of the Church.

Next, you tell us, That Timothy and Titus were supreme in their Provinces, and independent from any other See. This indeed the Doctor says, and we must believe him, though he brings not a word of proof for it; which the second part of his Assertion, concerning their independen­cy, did necessarily require; onely, he says, the contrary hath no degree of truth in it, which he makes account will carry the business, without bringing the least degree of probability for it. As for the first part, I would ask the Doctor, whether St. Paul were supreme over them in his life time, or no; if he were, (as I suppose both his Epistles to them, and the Doctors former large Testimony from the monosyllable COME, will manifest) then their being supreme in their own Provinces, consisting still with the superiority of St. Paul, may (for any thing de­ducible from that reason alone) admit the Supremacy of the Head of the Church, and their subjection to him: And the obligation lies yet upon the Doctor to prove positively, That Timothy and Titus were totally exempt from [Page 136] St. Peters Jurisdiction; for which, Negative proofs are insufficient, or indeed for any thing else. Yet the Doctors Quiver is full of such blunt shafts; and it is an evidence with him to argue thus, I have not read it, or it is not ex­prest in this Testimony; therefore there is no such thing, or, therefore it is false: As hath been often discovered in the process of this An­swer.

That which follows, That it is the nature of Primates or Patriarchs, to have no Superior to exer­cise Iurisdiction over them, is onely his own say­ing; and so with like facility denied, as as­firmed. The Ordination of them, by others, I have already shewn, not to prejudice the Universal Authority of the Head of the Church; whose duty it is not to descend to otherwise suppliable actions, about particular Members of that Body; but from the top of his Pri­macy, to govern and overlook the whole, and to be conversant about that more Universal sort of actions reserved, and proper to his larger power; to the managing of which, the short­handed Jurisdictions of particular Patriarchs, were not able to reach. C. 7. S. 9.

But now comes the most dangerous blow of all: The Doctor did but take his aym all this while; now he is fetching the fatal stroke, and me thinks I see the Ax even now falling upon the neck of Rome. He threatens in his ninth Section, To put the whole matter out of controversie. And how, think you? he tells us, That Kings could ever erect and translate Pa­triachates in their own Dominions; and therefore that the Kings of England may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury, and subject [Page 137] all this Iland to that independent Archbishop or Primate. There is a trick now for the Pope, which he never dream'd of: Where first you see Mr▪ Hammond supposes, as granted, That the Popes power is but meerly Patriarchal, which is the chief, if not onely thing in que­stion between us: So as his method to put the whole matter out of Controversie, is to beg the supposal of the whole matter in Contro­versie. C. 6. S. 10.

This supposal laid for a ground, he repeats again for his first instance, those two late an­swered Acts of Iustinian, erecting Iustiniana Prima and Carthage, two Arch-Bishopricks or Pri­macies: Though himself acknowledges, That C. 6. S. 11. Carthage was not originally dignified, but onely restored to its Primacy by the said Emperor, after the Wandals were driven our; which be­ing onely an Act of preserving the former Canons of the Church inviolate, every good Christian Emperor, and Prince, not onely may, but also ought to do it; and when he does it, it is by the power of the Canons of the Church.

As for the first instance concerning Iustiniana Prima, the Dr. thinks perhaps, good man, that he doth well; but put the proof in form, and he will, I am confident, be ashamed of the con­sequence. Iustinian erected Patriarchates (saith the History) therefore Kings have power to do such acts of themselves, (infers the Doctor) where the force of the illation is the same, as if one should say, The late Parliament took away Bishops; therefore Parliaments have a power to take them away: That a particular matter of fact may conclude a self-and-proper power in him that [Page 138] did it, you must first prove that power to be originally his own, and not delegated to him by another, pretending to it himself, who in our case is the Pope: Next you must prove, That if he did it without that delegation, yet his action was lawful.

These, if you first prove, your instances will come to something; otherwise, they are sence­less, and infer less then nothing; wanting both the crutches which may enable them to advance forwards to a conclusion.

Your next instance is, That the Emperor C. 6. S. 12. Valentinian did by his Rescript constitute Ra­venna a Patriarchal Seat, where you quote no Author but Anno Dom. 432. And indeed you did well, for the Rescript is accounted spurious, and to have been foisted into the Monuments of that Church in the time of their Schism. Had you told us, how invalid the Authority of it was, and how not onely for that, but for many other things it lay under just exceptions, you had been put to the puzzling task of de­fending its authentickness.

The exceptions against it, are these: First, It begins in a different manner from the con­stant tenor of all other Rescripts: Next, the decree is singular, and consequently to be sus­pected in this; that all the other Rescripts made in the reign of the two Emperors, though constituted by one of them onely, yet were ever authorized by both their names, whereas the name and Authority of the Emperor Theo­dosius is wanting to this. Thirdly, the Inscri­ption of Imperator Major is new and unheard of; all the rest, entitling Valentinian, Impera­tor Maximus. Fourthly, the Bishops of Rhe­gium, [Page 139] Placentia, and Brixillis, are in the Rescript named, as under the Archbishop of Ravenna, which is a plain forgery; since, not long afte [...] ▪ Pope Leo commanding Eusebius, Archbishop of Millain, to gather a Provincial Council of the Bishops subject to him; those three Bishops met there, and subscribed to that Council, as appears by the Synodal Epistle yet extant. Fift­ly, The same Rescript which gives them Archie­piscopatum, an Arch-Bishoprick, (which you make a Patriarchate) granted them also the use of the Pall; which was never accustomed to be given by the Emperors, but by the Popes one­ly; as appears by the Epistles of Gregory the Great, to the then Archbishops of Ravenna. This last rub so puzzled Hieronymus Rubens to smooth it (who out of a preposterous love of his Countrey, cited this Rescript for its privi­ledge) that he was forced to explicate that Pall to be Caesarum Paludamentum, such an Im­perial Robe, as the Cesars used to wear; where­as, besides the unlikeliness of the action, it is plainly contrary to the Rescript it self, which grants them such a Pall, Sicut Caeteri sub nostrâ Christianissimâ potestate saepe degentes fruuntur Me­tropolitae; As the rest of the Metropolitans in his Dominions often wore: Which every one who hath but tasted of the study of ancient Histo­ry, knows to have been another manner of thing, then the Emperors Robe.

We cannot then in reason think other, but that either the Rescript is false, and (because no new Bishop of Ravenna could use the Pall, without a new Concession from the Pope, as appears in St. Greg. Lib. 5. Epist. 8.) forged in the time of the Schism, that they might have [Page 140] some pretence to retain still the use of the Pall, which they accounted honorable. Or, at least, it cannot be imagined to have been made without the Popes consent; since the Pope in the very next year after the making of this presumed Rescript, appointed and consti­tuted (even those of Ravenna at first, being unwilling) St. Peter Chrysologus to succeed in that See, after the decease of Iohn; as the same Monuments affirm: Whence, the Doctor, but from a manifestly corrupted part of them, pickt out this Testimony.

That the after-Bishops of Ravenna were sometimes Schismaticks, all the world knows; none excusing them, much less bringing that action of theirs for a Testimony, or example, till such as Mr. Hammond arose, who were in­volved in the same crime: But that from Va­lenti [...]ans time, Ravenna held the Patriarchate till the time of Constantinus Pogonatus, with­out dependence on the Bishop of Rome (as the Doctor tells us) is an intolerable mistake, as any one meanly versed in History, knows; and as is manifest by Pope Gregories Letters to the Bishops of that place; who was made Pope in the year Five hundred and ninety, whereas Pogonatus began his reign in the year Six hun­dred sixty and eight. Their sact then, Master Doctor, can onely stead or excuse you thus far, to shew, that others have been Schisma­ticks as well as your selves; and therefore you are not the first, nor onely men that have faln into a such a lapse: And thus far indeed, we grant your consequence; but it will not serve, to shew that you are faultless, because they were faulty. You should have manifested first, [Page 141] the justifiableness of their fact, and then pro­ceed by applying it, to justifie your own. Or rather indeed it infers you are Schismaticks, because you cling to none but those, whom all the world esteemed to be such.

But me thinks, I hear the Doctor gravely complain, That I call all those Schismaticks, whom he alleages as Testimonies against me; and that this also is, A method of security beyond all AMULETS. I answer, let it neither be as he, nor I say, but what the whole Christian World, both then and ever since held; none contradicting, but those who were accused of the same fault. Let us therefore make plain Reason our Judge in this present Contro­versie.

The Popes, at the breach of the Ravennates from their subjection, made head against them, and stood upon their Authority, as Universal Pastors of the Church, (as the Doctor will grant.) Which therefore in all likelihood would have been looked on by the rest of the Catholick Bishops, as a proud usurpation, and being against their common interest, to let the Pope pretend to an Universal Pastorship, ought in all reason to have engaged them in the Ravennates quarrel: Is there any news of such an Universal siding? Not a word: By which one may, at least, conjecture, That they thought the Popes pretence to the Primacy, lawful.

How did the Ravennates behave themselves in the business? Did they stick close to, and constantly claim their non subjection to the Pope, from Canons or Scripture?

Nothing less: They recanted often and ac­knowledged [Page 142] subjection, as the Doctor grants, and says they did it, sometimes out of fear of C. 5. S. 12. other enemies, sometimes out of friendship, or despite to their own Clergy; yet the people (adds the Doctor) thought themselves injured. Well, but what said the Governors of the world all this while, to whom it appertained to see Justice rightly administred: How did the Emperor Iustinian, the then Head of the Church (as the Doctor will have it) decide the Controversie, when he came to conclude it? He vindicated the Pope, and punished most se­verely the people of Ravenna; banished the Bishop, and in a judiciary manner put the ring­leaders of the Schism to death at Constantinople, whither they were carried bound. What a pitiful Controvertist then, is this Doctor, to alleage the bare fact of a turbulent, rebellious, never-quiet City, against the justly-presumed acknowledgment, and the unanimous belief both of the then-present, and future Christian World: Lastly, against the decision of those who were their Temporal Lords, and lawful Judges; and (according to the Doctors grounds) against the verdict of the Head of the Church, to whom the rightful power in those mat­ters C. 7. S. 20. C. 6. S. 13. legally pertained.

His fourth Instance is out of Balsamon (an enemy to the See of Rome, and a writer for the Greeks against it) who says, That some Arch-Bishopricks had from the Emperors Charter, that priviledge, not to be subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Where, first, if we may trust Balsamon, who seems in this very place and Treatise, to plead for the Greeks against the Bishop of Rome, then Mr. Doctor, you know [Page 143] your double task, necessary to make good your premises, ere you can conclude any thing; to wit, that the Emperors did it with order from the Church; or, in case they did not, that it was done lawfully. Next, does the Testimony say, That the Emperor priviledged them from subjection to the Pope, as Head of the Church? if not, there is no hurt at all done to our question; if it did, there had not been much, since an enemies saying, is no slander.

His fifth instance is, That under Phocas the Ibid. Patriarchate of Grado, in Italy, was erected. Where first it seems, The Testimony says not it was done by him, but under him, or, while he reigned; and then, for any thing, you can conclude from hence, The Pope did it in Phocas his reign. Secondly, since it was not indeed of new erected, but translated thither from Aquileia, burned not long before by the Longo­bards; it was no sign of a presumed Jurisdicti­on, but rather of a pious generosity (whether in Phocas or Charls the Great) to bestow a new seat on the destitute Patriarch. To omit, that in the Council of Grado, was read the Epistle of Pope Felagius the second, granting to Elias of Grad [...] the place of the Patriarch of Aquileia. The Doctor did wisely then to put under Pho­cas, in stead of by Phocas, that so he might seem to intimate by ambiguity, what he durst not speak out for want of evidence.

SECT. 5.

AFter his Evidence, from a forged Rescript C. 6. S. 14. and a tumultuous rable, That the right of erecting Patriarchates belongs to the Secular Power; and that this in the Western part of Christianity, was an ordinary custom; he pro­ceeds to shew, That this was a frequent usage in the East also; citing for it, no less authority then that highest one of General Councils. Sa­cred Witnesses! Whom to abuse, by imposing on them a false meaning, borders upon Pro­phaneness.

The first Testimony is, from the Twelfth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, where there is mention made of [...]. Cities honored by Letters Patents from the Kings or Emperors, with the name and dignities of Metropolisses; where (saith the Doctor) the Council represses the ambition of the Bishops, but not cassates the Rescripts, nor withdraws the honor from the Metropolis so erected. What cause the Doctor hath to brag of those newly-erected Metropolitans, we shall presently shew. He pro­ceeds, That Balsamon saith, many Emperors had erected many Metropolitans, and that they did [...], according to the [Page 145] power that was given them. Thus far the Do­ctor; whereas,

First the Council says onely that those Ci­ties were honored with [...], the Name alone, which the Doctor, fluent in his expressi­ons, Englishes the Name and Dignity; the later whereof they wanted, that which should dig­nifie them in a degree of a Metropolitan, being ab­solutely interdicted them by this very Canon, in these words, [...], let them enjoy onely the honor. Secondly, what this honor was, your friend Balsamon tells you; say­ing, Some desired to know what that honor mean't; [...], and received answer, [...], that except onely that this Bishoprick was called a Metropolis, in all other things it was subject to the former Metropolis. Thirdly, answerable to this are the very words in the Council, calling the former Metropolis in contradistinction to this, [...] ▪ the true Me­tropolis, signifying the other to be meerly titular. Fourthly, our question being, whether the Em­peror could give Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction, not whether he could name places as he pleases; and it being evident hence, that either the Empe­ror never gave any Iurisdiction to the new Me­tropolis, or if he did, it was cassated by the Coun­cil, nothing follows against us, but totally a­gainst your self: now that they had no new Ju­risdiction given them, is manifest out of the former pla [...] in Balsamon, saying, the Episcopacy was onely called a Metropolis; to which he sub­joyns, [...] [Page 146] [...]. For the Bishop of it (this new Metropolis) shall be or­dained by the old Metropolitan, and shall be judged by him, and in plain terms shall be subject to him. Fifthly, Balsamon tells us, the Emperors did this according to the power that was given them, which words the Doctor cites; but leaves out a thing called [...], rendred by the Inter­preter Olim, that is, once, formerly, or by some precedent Council; which Balsamon in that very place, judges to have been the eight and thir­tieth Canon in Trullo; as shall be more clearly manifested hereafter. The sum then of this first Testimony, is, That the Emperor con­ferred onely a name or title, and that not with­out power given by the Church in her Councils; both which are perfectly innocent to our cause, and prejudicial to the Alleagers.

His first Observation hereupon, is, That this Ibid. Council was within twenty years after that Grant of Valentinian; and consequently (saith the Doctor) if Balsamon say right, That at that time many Emperors had erected many, there must needs be others before Valentinian. Where the Obser­ver is faln into a great mistake. Balsamons words are these. [...], &c. The Canon determining these things, may some one say, How then have di­vers Kings honored divers Episcopacies to be Metro­politans: For now the Metropolis of Lacedemo­nia was a Bishoprick of the Metropolis of old PA­TRAE, Madita of Heraclea, Abyous of Cyri­cum; and other Bishopricks also were honored. It [...]ems therefore to me, from the eight and thirtieth [Page 147] Canon, &c. Where (to omit that Balsamon in the first part of this Testimony, intimates, That Kings may be checkt in such things by Councils, and not freed from that check, but from some Concession of another Council) the words are plain, That Balsamon speaks of his own times, in which he lived, that is, Six hundred years after the Council; and that then such and such Metropolitans were made, not of the time, when the Council was held. But the Observation is not much worth arguing or clearing.

His second Observation, is, That the seven­teenth Ibid. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, doth more expresly attribute this power to the Prince, saying, [...]. If any City be built or restored by the Kings power, let the Ecclesiastical order follow the Political. Thus the Doctor walks up and down, and yet at the same time disputes against motion: He is to prove, That it is the Kings proper right, independent of the Church or her Canons, to transfer the Ecclesiastical Dignities according to his political orders; and he brings for proof, a Canon of a Council, or the Church constituting and ordaining it; which shews that the matter depended upon the Ecclesiastical state: And he calls that a more express attributing this power to the Prince, which is indeed not attribuere but tribuere; not an acknowledgment of it, but a bestowing and conferring it.

This is most evident to the eye of any one who can read Greek, out of the Scholion of your [Page 148] Friend Balsamon upon the eight and thirtieth Canon in Trullo; which Scholion you quote here, as if it were to your purpose, and which very Canon you alleage here for your self in these words, And the same power is acknowledged to belong to the Prince by the Council in Trullo, Can. 38. Upon which Canon, Balsamon saith thus, [...], &c. But since the present Canon defines that those Cities which are erected, or shall be erected by the Empe­ror, be honored also by Churches conformably to the Emperors disposition, [...]. We say (saith Balsamon) that also BY THE PRESENT CANON IT IS GIVEN TO THE EMPE­ROR to make new Bishopricks, and raise others to the right of Metropolitans; and to ordain concern­ing their election and administration, as it shall seem good to him. And a little after he recites an Edict of the Emperor to that purpose, in which are found these words, [...], &c. My Imperial power not suffer­ing THE PRIVILEDGE WHICH IS GRANTED IT BY THE DIVINE CANONS to be neglected, ordains, &c. Was ever good man so mistaken as to cite such pla­ces, which, lookt into, are as expresly against him, as if they were coyn'd purposely in defi­ance of his doctrine? Yet he, forgetting the question, runs on with a long Testimony, That [Page 149] the Emperors could do it [...] and [...], of his own motion, and without the ambitious sollicitation of them that sought it. Where­as the question is not upon what terms it was lawful, for the Emperor to give it; but whe­ther it were his own proper power annext to him, as Head of the Church, sollicited or not sollicited, to give it at all, and erect such Metro­politans at pleasure; or rather, whether it were an indulgence or priviledge, granted and given him by the Church in her Canons: Which last is our tenet, and most evidently visible in the very Testimonies alleaged against us.

His second Testimony (for the two last were Ibid. onely his over-sights or observations) begins after the old strain thus: And ACCORDINGLY the same Balsamon (on Conc. Carthag. Can. 16.) doth upon that Canon professedly found the Authority of Princes [...] to ad­vance an Episcopal See into a Metropolis, and a new to constitute Bishops and Metropolitans. Thus far the Doctor: Where he is over head and ears again in a grievous mistake; for neither doth Balsamon found the Authority of Princes to ex­ecute such Acts, as of their own power, on that Canon, there being not a word in it to that purpose: Neither doth he PROFESSEDLY say any thing as of himself, but that you are PROFESSEDLY mistaken: And had he said it, I conceive it no such strong Argument, That a professed Adversary should speak so professed­ly against one. But indeed, neither he nor the Canon say any such matter. The Canon not so much as names, either Episcopal or Metropolical Se [...]s; but the main business there treated, is, [Page 150] That Bishops and Priests should not live upon base occupations, nor employ themselves in secular busi­nesses: Which Balsamon in his Scholion or Com­ment, more elucidates from like prohibitions of other Patriarchs; adding in the end out of other mens opinions, and not his own profession, these words, [...].— But some say these Canons or Constitutions take place, when any one, who hath taken holy Orders, shall ex­ercise a secular Ministery without the command of the Emperor.— [...], &c. And they adde (saith Balsamon) that the King is neither under Laws nor Canons; and therefore he may securely make a Bishoprick a Metropolis, &c.—and anew constitute Bishops and Metropolitans. Where the Reader may see he introduces this as a deduction of others; and that from no other grounds then this, A King is neither bound by Canons nor Laws; that is, his Will is his Law, or he may do lawfully what he lists; and then indeed (these grounds supposed) I blame not the inference that he should erect, transplant, n [...]y, pull down, not only Bishops and Patriarchs, but the whole Hierarchy it self (your present lot, consequent to these your grounds.)

Thus at length we have found the bottom­stone of the Doctors grounds, Why Kings may erect Patriarchates by their proper power, not to be Councils, as he pretended; but their own all-lawful inerrableness to do what they please, [Page 151] let Councils, Canons, Parliaments, and Laws say what they will to the contrary. A foundation fitting indeed to build the Doctors Assertion upon, but in all other respects, able to ruine and overthrow both Laws, Commonwealths, Ca­nons, and Church.

In his fifteenth Section, persisting still in his C. 6. S. 15, 16. seigned supposal, That the Popes power is one­ly Patriarchal; he goes on to prove, that the antiquity of translating Patriarchs and Bishops belongs to Kings, as well as of erecting. Of which he gives some instances in our Countrey of England: By which, what he means to prove, I cannot easily conjecture. If he intends that Kings did oft do such things, I wonder who denies it; but if they did it by their proper right, without the order or consent, either of the Apostolical See, or the Ecclesiastical State of his own Bishops; he brings not one word in proof, but rather expresly manifests the con­trary from the carriage of St. Anselm, then Arch­bishop of Canterbury, as learned and pious a Prelate as that age produced; who (as the Doctor confesses) when the King would have cut off as much from the Diocess of Lincoln, as would make a new Bishoprick at Ely, Anselm wrote to Pope Paschalis, desiring his consent to it; assuring him he would not give his consent, but salvâ authoritate Papae, the authority of the Pope be­ing secured. Where you see plainly, the Arch­bishops consent was necessary, and that with­out it, the Kings desire seemed controleable: Next, that the Archbishop himself, even with the Kings authority to back him, would not venture on it till the Pope's consent was asked.

[Page 152]Here then Mr. Doctor you have a positive Testimony of the gravest Prelate our Coun­trey hath ever been honored with, refusing the sufficiency of the Kings sole authority to con­clude such businesses, without his, and the Popes consent; which therefore more justly challenges audience in the Court of Reason, then all your dumb Negatives, though they were a thousand more.

To conclude, in what your Testimonies were Positive, to wit, that such things were done de facto, so far we yeeld to them; in what they are Negative, tacitly inferring, that because they were done, and no mans right named, therefore they were done de jure, by the proper right of him that did them: So far we allow them no credit at all.

First, Because they might have been per­formed by the secular Authorities, either with consent of the Bishops, or some indulgent grant of the Church to pious Princes; or, by order from the Pope; or else, Concession of some former Council; an example of which, we had lately in the Council of Chalcedon.

Next, because Histories, intending onely to relate matters of fact, mention rather those that put things in execution, and more visibly ap­pear in the transacting them, such as are Secular Magistrates; and stand not scanning or debating much, by whose right things were done; which belongs to Lawyers, and would be but a by­discourse hindering the orderly process of their Narrative strain.

Thirdly, because every one who hath the least smack of Logick knows, A Negative Argu­ment proves nothing, such as are all yours here [Page 153] alleaged. For this is the tenor of them, Histo­rians say, Some Kings translated some Patriarchates, and it is not mentioned, they did it by the Churches power; therefore they did it by their own; which will be found in good Logick, to fall very far short of concluding.

Lastly, because the Church ever challenged, as her own proper right, asserted to her by the Canons, the jurisdiction and power, to inter­meddle in businesses purely Ecclesiastical.

In his seventeenth Paragraph he proposes C. 6. S. 17. two other Objections of the same nature with the rest. The first, in common, that the King could exempt from Episcopal Jurisdiction, which he says is largely asserted and exemplifi­ed in Coudrayes case, 5 Report. 14. And truly the Doctor is to be commended for his fair and sin­cere expression. For it is indeed meerly assert­ed and exemplified without the least shadow of proof.

In the first example there alleaged, King Kenulphus is said to have exempted a Monastery, Consilio & consensis Episcoporum & Senatorum Gen­tis suae, which was no instance of power in him, unless it was also in the Bishops and Nobles, That he could not, or would not do it without their agreement.

The exemption of Reading Abbey, by Henry the First, argues no authority, he being the Founder of it, and not bound to give his goods to the Church, but upon the conditions which pleases himself. Which answer likewise serves for all Hospitals, and such like pious Houses founded by the King.

The third example of the Abbot of Buries exemption by the King, is Recorded without [Page 154] particular circumstances, and so must stand for an example of the Kings execution or com­mand, to the secular Magistrate, to proceed accordingly, but proves nothing, That the King did it without consent of the Bishop, un­der whom it was.

These are all the cases of secular exemptions, produced by that learned Lawyer, which you see are pure examples of the Kings exempt­ing, either with the Bishops consent, or by title of asking, what conditions he thought fit to annex to his own Liberalities, as every pri­vate person may, or at most alleaged so ab­stractedly, that any of these, or many other causes, may justly be supposed to have interve­ned. But I mistake, there is yet one more, to which the Doctor thought good to give a parti­cular efficacy, by citing the very words of the Charter, which are these, Hoc regali authori­tate & Episcoporum ac Baronum attestatione consti­tuo. I appoint this by my royal Authority with the attestation of my Bishops and Barons. But had the Doctor remembred he had named this King, be­fore William the Conqueror, he would have understood that Regali Authoritate, signified as much as in the first of Kings doth that famous phrase Ius Regis, that is, the power of the sword, the power of taking away any mans goods, and giving them to another; the power of doing all wrong, as is not onely known of the Conquerors other proceedings, but even out of this fact, taking the goods of a Bishop, and the provision ordained for Souls, and attribu­ting them to an Abbey: And this by the very words of the Charter, without any course of Law or consent of any Justice, or power in the [Page 155] Commonwealth: So that our Doctor has brought us in a very special example for Henry the Eighth, the worst of his Successors to imi­tate, and justifie his Spiritual Authority by.

To that which he affirms of the Chatholick C. 6. S. 18. German Emperors, the Kings of France and England; that they claimed to be founders of all Bishopricks in their Dominions, and Patrons of them to bestow them by investiture: I answer, they did very well to found as many as they pleased, that is, to enrich and enlarge the Church with Episcopal Revenues by their pious Donations; and when they have done, to claim deservedly the Advowsons, and present whom they please to be invested by the Church; whom yet, if they be found unworthy, the Church rejects, notwithstanding the Kings presentation and authority, and consequently this is done by the consent of the Church: Neither is this an­nexed to the Kingly dignity onely, as a parti­cular badg of his Authority over the Church; but even private Subjects, when either them­selves or their Ancestors have founded some Ecclesiastical Benefice, challenge to themselves the Advowsons, without any prejudice to the Church; who allows it reasonable, that the Friends of the Donors should rather enjoy that benefit, then others. Unless, perhaps, the persons be found unfit; which in that case, ob­liges the Church to use her Authority, by in­terposing her resusal. This therefore private persons can do, as well as Kings, and yet, I hope, the Doctor will not say, That all those are Lords and Heads of the Church. Lastly, he might as well have made mention of the Pope and Clergies ressistance to Kings that [Page 156] usurped the investitures, as of the others claim­ing of them; both being equally notorious in History, and the Princes in the end, having yeelded that their pretence was unjust.

Next he tells us, the Kings of France and Ibid. England, claimed a just right, that no Legate from Rome could use Iurisdiction here, without their leave. What a terrible business is this? Or, what follows hence? None can imagine but the Dr. himself, who certainly had some meaning in it, or other; They did so indeed, and so do Catho­lick Kings sometimes to this day; who yet com­municate with the Church, and are accounted obedient sons, as long as they proceed with due moderation. But that they did it in dis­acknowledgment of the Popes Supremacy; or, that the Legate brought not his Jurisdiction with him from Rome, but was glad to receive it of the King, ere he could use it, this the Doctor will never be able to make good. Nay, they were so far from denying the Popes Au­thority even in this kinde, That our Kings of England procured of the Pope, that the Arch­bishop of Canterbury should be Legatus Natus.

But now the Doctor hath resolved me of my Ibid. former doubt, which was, with what art possi­ble he could make these imperfect Testimonies serve his purpose; adding here immediately these words, All these put together, are a foundation for this power of the Princes, to erect or translate a Patriarchate. As if he should have said, Though there be not one word in any single Testimony expresly manifesting, That it is principally the Kings power, or excluding the Churches; yet I have produced many things little to the purpose (if considered in their single selves) which, notwithstanding I [Page 157] would intreat you to believe, that ALL THESE PUT TOGETHER ARE A FOUNDATION, &c. Where note, that here again also he ob­serves his former invincible method of reser­ving his strongest Arguments till the last; put­ting immediately before his Conclusion, That the Legates were often not admitted in Eng­land; so as out of the very non-admission of the Legates, the Doctor infers an absolute power in Princes, to erect and translate Patriarchates. Be­sides, were all this granted, what is it to your, or our purpose; since we accuse you not of Schism, for breaking from the Popes subjection, as a private Patriarch, but as the chief Pastor and Head of the Church.

But, because the Doctor could not handsomly transfer this Primacy from Rome to Canterbury, to secure him from the subjection to Antichrist; therefore he was pleased to mistake it, all a­long this Chapter, for a Patriarchate; and then undertakes to shew from some few Testimonies de facto, That it was not the Churches, but the Kings Authority to erect and translate them. Whereas (besides the answers in particular al­ready given) no prudent man can doubt, but in the process of fifteen or sixteen hundred years, and in such a vast extent as the Christian world, there may be found twenty or thirty matters of Fact (if one will take Histories to collect them) either out of ambition, igno­rance, rebellion, or tyranny, against the most inviolable right that can be imagined.

Besides, many things might often be menti­oned, by Historiographers, as done, without particularizing the Authority, by which they were done. Especially in our case; where, by [Page 158] reason of the connexion between the Soul and Body of the politick world; the Ecclesiastical and Secular State; they seem to act as one thing: The Temporal Authority most commonly putting in execution the intentions of the Church. And this also makes them appear more visibly to proceed from the Temporal part, then from the Spiritual; as humane actions more apparently spring from the Body, then from the Soul. But if the Doctor would have proved sincerely, That Kings indeed had that pretend­ed power, he should not have stood piddling with half a dozen fag ends of History, to prove such a thing was sometimes done de facto, but recurred to the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Ca­nons, where such things are purposely treated, and there he should have found another story. But he is wiser then to confine himself within the proper lists of any question; he had rather be in the open field, where his little fayery­reason may hop and skip from bough to bryar; and weary his adversary not to combate, but to catch him.

SECT. 6.

THe endeavours of Mr. Hammond in the fore­going C. 6. S. 19. part of this Chapter was first, to sup­pose the Pope onely a private Patriarch, next, that the King can erect and translate Patriarcha­tes; after which (though other men of reason use to put their grounds, ere they deduce any thing from them) he lays the grounds in this 19 Pa­ragraph of his formerly built discourse, saying, that the Reason of all is, the supreme power of Kings, even in Ecclesiastical matters. Where, (to omit how he has mangled that one poor Paragraph with ten parenthesisses, no more) he so inter­mingles and shuffles together, in an equal tenor, truths with falshoods, things dubious and un­prov'd, with things acknowledged, and that need no proof, things to the purpose, with things to no purpose, that it would loath any well-order'd Reason, to see in so little a room, so perfect a map of disorderly confusion. But ere we come to answer that; his marginal testi­monies which he huddles together briefly of all sorts, would seem neglected, if we should not allow them a cursory reflection.

First, what he objects out of Chomatenus, though his Author were of any Authority, yet [Page 160] it makes nothing at all to his purpose; since the very words he cites, that the King is as it were the common Director and Ruler of the Church, sig­nifies rather he was not so▪ then was so; unless he can prove that quasi, as it were, can bear the sence of revera, indeed, or in reality. And then how handsomely think you, would these words hang together, that the King is IN REALITY AS IT WERE, the Ruler of the Church. Nay rather the words alledged plainly signifie the contrary: For, if there be a common Ruler of the Church, and the King be onely as it were that Ruler; it is plain, there is some other, not, as it were, but truly and properly such.

The second is yet much more absurd; for never was there Testimony, nor can be imagined in so little room, more expresly witnessing, that Kings have nothing to do with Ecclesiasti­cal affairs then this of Constantine; which the Doctor brings to prove the contrary. I mean if we take the words as the Doctor cites them▪ in Greek, without his can [...]ing translation of them. The words are these, [...]. In English thus, as neer word by word as it can possibly be render'd. You truly (speaking to the Bi­shops) are constituted Overseers (or Bishops) of those affairs which are within the Church; but I am constituted under God Overseer of those affairs which are without the Church. But the Doctor seems willing to take there the word [...] or Church, for a material Church of stone, and so▪ renders [...], those things which are celebrated within it; Yet is pittifully puzled notwithstanding, rendering [...] [Page 161] (which signifies things without the Church) ex­ternal things; because the right words would have excluded the Emperors power over Eccle­siastical affairs; and yet even so it will not serve his turn; for unless he can make his own words ( external things) signifie spiritual things, to which they will be very unwilling, the Te­stimony is still expresly against him.

Besides, it is pretty sport to observe how silli­ly insincere the Doctor is, telling us that Con­stantine the Great spake those words in an Assembly of Bishops; by which and the Doctors wrong Translation, the simple Reader would judge that Constantine had told a General Council of Bishops to their face, that he was Head of the Church: but when I came to finde out the Author and the place (both which the Doctor had prudently omitted) I found it was onely spoken when he was at dinner with some Bishops. The Author is Eusebius, de vita Constantini, l. 4▪ c. 24. The title of the Chapter is this, as I finde it in the Translator, (for I had not the Greek) Quod externarum rerum quasi Episcopum se quendam professus est, That he professed him­self, as it were a kinde of a Bishop over exter­nal things. Then follows the Chapter in these words. Ex quo etiam factum est, ut cum Episcopos nonnullos convivio excepisset, ipse se nobis audientibus Episcopum appellaret, his ferè verbis: Vos, (inquit) intra Ecclesiam, ego extra Ecclesiam à Deo Episco­pus constitutus sum. Itaque cùm quae loquebatur ea­dem secum mente cogitaret, animum in omnes qui ejus suberant imperio intentum habuit, hortatus pro virili utpiam omnes vitam excolerent. Whence it came to pass, that when he had entertained some Bishops at a feast (or Banquet) he in our hearing, called him­self [Page 162] a Bishop in those words: You (saith he) are constituted Bishops within the Church, I without the Church. Wherefore since his thought went along with his words, he apply'd his mind to those who were under his Empire, exhorting them, to his power, that they should all lead a pious life. Where, besides what I formerly found the Doctor faulty in, we see that the Author of this Testimony, who was present, when the Emperor spake these words, and so could best judge of his meaning by the circumstances, deduced no more out of them, then that he called himself Bishop, because it belonged to his Calling to exhort all his subjects to lead a pious life, and administer rightly those things of which they were Overseers by God.

His third Testimony to prove the King Head of Ecclesiastical, as well as civil affairs, is, that irreprehended saying of Leo Isaurus, who said to the Pope, [...], I am a King and a Priest, which was indeed a say­ing worthy an Anti-heretick, as Isaurus was; being a ring leader of the Iconoclasts. A wise man would wonder what the Doctor intended by producing such a saying, which himself must acknowledge extravagant: since none of the late Kings of England ever assum'd to themselves the title of a Priest, as did this infatuated Empe­ror; who gave more credit to Sooth-sayers and fortune-tellers, then to God and his Church.

The third is from Socrates, who says, the af­fairs of the Church depended on the Emperors. And who denies it? Therefore what? Ergo Kings are supreme in Ecclesiastical affairs? How fol­lows that? since the onely word is wanting, to wit, supreme, which can make good the infe­rence. The affairs of the Head depend on the [Page 163] Arms and Shoulders; therefore will the Do­ctor infer they are supreme or highest? as though dependence could not be both mutual and unequal. It must needs argue a Soul very empty of reason, to catch thus at every shadow of any aery word, and think to deduce thence a full sentence.

The fourth is from Optatus, noting it as a schis­matical piece of language in the Donatists to say, Quod Imperatori cum Ecclesiâ? What has the Em­peror to do with the Church, citing for it his second Book. But (though perhaps I may be mistaken in not seeing so small a Testimony) I finde no such thing in that place he quotes. Indeed I finde that ancient Father arguing like a present Catholike, calling the Doctor Schis­matick, and quite confuting and contradicting all his book; saying, Negare non potes scire te in urbe Româ PETRO PRIMO Cathedram Episco­palem esse collatam; in quâ sederit omnium APO­STOLORUM CAPUT PETRUS; Thou canst not deny that in the City of Rome the Episcopal Chair was given to PETER THE FIRST; in which sate PETER THE HEAD OF ALL THE APOSTLES. Then he proceeds to rec­kon up all the Popes of Rome, successors of S. Peter, till Pope Siricius, who lived in his days, Cum quo nobis totus orbis in commercio Formatorum in unâ Communionis societate concordat;—With whom the whole world agrees in one society of Communion, by correspondence of communicatory Let­ters.—▪ And afterwards, probatum est nos esse in Ecclesiâ Sanctâ Catholicâ—per Cathedram Petri, quae nostra est, & per ipsam caeteras Dotes apud nos esse, etiam Sacerdotium. It is proved that we are in the holy Catholike Church by the chair of Peter, [Page 164] which is ours: (what will become of the Do­ctor, who can lay no claim, nor hath any right to it, nay hath disclaimed its right, and who findes here a reason why we may justly be cal­led Roman Catholikes) It follows, and by the chair of Peter, other gifts are also with us, even Priest­hood. Alas poor Doctor Hammond, who having lost Communion with that Church, hath lost also his Priesthood, Mission, and power to preach, if this holy Father say true. What hard fortune it was that Optatus lived not in the primitive times, for then the Doctor had believed him and turned Papist; but in regard he wrote after the three hundreth year, (the fatal period of any certain truth in Gods Church, as the Doctor afterwards intimates) he hath quite lost his la­bour, and his Authority is invalid for writing Truth so late. As for the Testimony it self, which probably is this Fathers in some other place, I see no difficulty at all in it: For the Emperor being a nursing Father to the Church, whose secu­lar power she invoked to punish and repress such as were the Donatists; none but Schis­maticks would deny that power so granted to be sufficiently Authoritative to punish their perni­cious Apostasie.

Then follow six Testimonies out of heathen writers all in a cluster, that their Kings ought to be Priests and Augurs, &c. and the Doctor would have the example transfer'd to Christianity. Indeed if Iesus Christ had not come from hea­ven to found a Church, and (besides what hath been said of St. Peters Primacy) left it un­der the Government of Ecclesiastical persons, the Apostles, committing all jurisdiction in af­fairs of that nature to them, without depen­dence [Page 165] of any secular superior; then, for any thing I know, we might have come ere this to have been in statu quo prius, that is, Heathens again; and so the Doctors Argument might have ta'ne place▪ But if Christ founded a Church up­on Apostles, Ecclesiastical persons, without the help of secular supports, leaving all power both of Ordination and Iurisdiction to it, the Doctor must either prove no disparity between the sa­cred oeconomy of Christs House, and the Babel of heathenism; or else grant his parity improper and absurd. I never imagin'd there was any such extraordinary holiness in the heathenish Rites, but a secular power might serve to per­form and overlook them: And, as the reason why they were used by the Emperors, was one­ly because their mock-Religion was nothing but a policy to delude and bridle the vulgar; so if Christian Religion were nothing but a trick of State-policy, it would do very well indeed in a secular Princes hands, to alter and fashion it to the mold of the peoples humors. But our all-wise God hath dealt more prudently with his Church; encharging his sacred Mysteries and the Churches-Government to those persons, whose very state of life being purely dependent on God and his service, secures them from being cross-byass'd by worldly interests, and secular pretences. Yet the Doctor is so deeply im­mers'd in Schism, that he relishes and fancies better the Pope-destroying example of heathen policy, then the ever-sacred, and heaven-insti­tuted Government of Christianity.

His eleventh instance is from David who or­der'd the courses of the Priests, and Solomon who consecrated the Temple; but the Doctor may [Page 166] consider, that David and Solomon were Prophets as well as Kings, and so no wonder, if, according to the more particular prudence given them by God, they did something extraordinary. Nei­ther doubt I, but if nowadays any King were both a Saint and a Prophet, it were very con­venient he should assist and instruct the Church in a more particular way, and yet not thank his Kingly Dignity for that Authority neither. But indeed, neither David nor Solomon shewed any strain of a higher Jurisdiction. Their greater zeal might invite them, and their exacter know­ledge make their assistance requisite to order the courses of the Priests. And as for Solomons Con­secrating the Temple, it was performed by offer­ing Sacrifice; which he himself▪ offer'd not, but the Priests; so as his Consecrating it was nothing else but his causing them to Conse­crate it. A pittiful proof that Kings are over the Church in Ecclesiastical affairs.

His twelfth Testimony is of Hezekiah and Iosiah, who ordered many things belonging to the Temple. So wonderfully acute is this Doctor, that no King can do a pious deed, or even scarce say his Prayers, but his honor-dropping-pen, streight way entitles him Head of the Church.

His thirteenth is of St. Paul, who (saith he) Ibid. appealed from the judgement of the chief Priests to the Tribunal of Caesar. So as now Caesar, a Hea­then Emperor, is become Head of the Church; nay of two Churches (according to Master Hammond) the Heathenish, and the Christian. But the good Doctor is most grievously mista­ken here, as he hath been almost in every place of Scripture he hath yet produc't & I observe, that though he be pretty good at mistaking all [Page 167] over his Book, yet when he omes to alleadge any thing out of Gods Word, he errs far more accurately. For St. Paul appealed not from the Tribunal of the Jews, much less their Sy­nagogue (representing their Church) as the Doctor would perswade us; but from the Tri­bunal of Portius Festus, a Roman Governor un­der Caesar, to Caesar himself; I will onely put down the words as I finde them in their own Translation, and so leave the Doctor to the Rea­ders Judgement, either to be accused for willfully abusing, or ignorantly mistaking them: But Festus willing to do the Iews a plea­sure, answered Paul and said, wilt thou go up to Ie­rusalem, and there be judged of these things before me: Then said Paul, I stand at Caesars judgement-seat where I ought to be judged, &c. Act. 25. 9, 10, &c. And now is not this Doctor think you the fittest man among all the sons of the Church of England to have a Pension for writing Anno­tations in folio on the Bible.

His last proof is, that Iustinians third Book is made up of Constitutions, de Episcopis, Clericis, Laicis; Bishops, Priests, Laymen. First we answer, and the same may be said of the Theodo­sian Code, that all the Laws found there must not necessarily be Iustinians; since the Keepers of the Laws use not onely to put in their Law­books those Constitutions, themselves made, but also those they are to see observed; among which are the Canons and Laws of the Church, made before by Councils and other Ecclesiastical Powers. Secondly, We grant Iustinian may make Constitutions of his own concerning Bi­shops, and Clergymen, in what relates to tempo­ral affairs, or as they are parts of the civil Com­monwealth▪ [Page 168] And lastly, If he shall be found to have made any Laws concerning them, and without the Authority of the Church entrench­ing upon Ecclesiastical businesses, let the Do­ctor prove he had power to make such, and he will in so doing, clear him in that part, from that note of Tyranny, which is objected against him.

What you say concerning the Canons of Councils, that they have been mostly set out by the Emperors; It is very certain, you might, if you had pleased, instead of your Mostly have put Al­ways, the causing them to be promulgated be­longing to the Office of the supreme secular Powers; whose obligation it is to see that the Churches decrees be received and put in exe­cution. What you clap in within a Parenthesis (as your custom is to intermingle truth with falshood) that Canons of Councils received their Authority by the Emperor; In the sence you take it is a great error. For never was it heard that an Emperor claimed a negative voice in making a Canon of a Council valid, which con­cerned matters purely Spiritual; nay, nor dis­accepted them, decreed unanimously by the Fa­thers, but all the world lookt upon him as an unjust and tyrannical incroacher. They re­ceive indeed Authority from the Emperor in this sense, that his subscription and command to proclaim them makes them have a more powerful reception, and secures them from the obstacles of turbulent and rebellious spirits; But this will not content you, your aym is, that they should not have the Authority or validity of a Canon, without the last-life-giving-hand of the Emperors vote, which is onely a strain [Page 169] of your own liberality to him, or rather of your envy towards the Church, without any ground of his rightful claim to any such Juris­diction over Councils.

SECT. 7.

THese rubs being removed, it will be our next sport to address an answer to his nineteenth Section it self; where omitting his ten Paren­thesisses, which contain nothing, but either say­ings of his own, or Greek out of Strabo's Geo­graphy, That the Romans kept their assizes at di­vers places; or Testimonies from the Council of Chalcedon, already answered; omitting these, I say, I will briefly resume the whole sence of the Paragraph, as well as I can gather it out of the some-thing-more- Lucid intervals of his mad Parenthesisses: And this I take to be the sum of it, That Kings should, according to emergent conveniences, change their Seats of Iudicature; C. 6▪ S. 19. and that the same reasons may require a removal of Ecclesiastical Seats; wherefore, there being no­thing to the contrary constituted, either by Christ or his Apostles, it follows, That Kings may, when they please, erect, and consequently remove Primacies and Metropolitans.

I answer, That Secular Courts may be remo­ved upon good occasions, is so evident to every Fool, that it needs neither Greek, nor Strabo to [Page 170] prove it. That Ecclesiastical Seats, for greater conveniences of the Church, be also subject to removal, is likewise evident and constituted by the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 17. But his in­ference, That it belongs to the right of Kings to erect and transfer them, is weaker then water; nor has the Doctor infused into it, the least grain of Reason to strengthen it.

Yet first to prove it, he says, Nothing is found either by Christ, or his Apostles ordered to the con­trary. Which is a most pitiful Negative proof (as indeed the greatest part of his Book i [...]) and supposes, to make it good, That neither Christ, nor his Apostles, said, did, or ordered any thing but what is exprest in Scripture; which is both expresly contrary to Scripture it self, and to common reason also.

Besides, this wise proof is both most unjust towards us, and silly in him to expect; unjust towards us, ingaging us to prove out of Scri­pture, That Kings cannot erect Primacies and Patriarchates, whereas there is no such word there, as either Primate or Patriarchate, which he would have us shew thence not subject to Kings.

Nor is it less silly in him to expect, That the Scripture should make mention of the e­rection, or not erection of Primacies and Pa­triarchates by Secular Powers; since the Secular Powers, when the Scripture was written, being most bloody Tyrants and Persecutors of the Church, were more likely to hang up all Pri­mates and Patriarchs, then either erect or remove their Seats to a more convenient place. Yet if you would see something to the contrary, why Kings should not use Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, [Page 171] I can produce you the sence of the Catholick Church, the best Testimony that can be al­leaged for the meaning of Gods Spirit; but be­cause this weighs little with you, I shew you next, the Testimony of common sence and reason, which tells you, Faber fabrilia tractet; and that those, whose education, institute of life, particular designment to, and total de­pendence on any course of life, makes them more strongly addict all their thoughts to per­fect themselves knowingly and magisterially in that their proper profession, are fitter by far for such an employment, then those whose diversly-distracted studies, render them half-knowing, or half-careful in such performances.

How much then is it more convenient, that Ecclesiastical persons should manage the affairs of the Church, then Secular Princes, whom partly their necessary Temporal occasions, partly voluntary Recreations, Court attendan­ces and entertainments, so quite take up, that they can have but saint and weak reflections, either of knowledge or care, in comparison of the others, upon the most concerning business imaginable, the ordering Gods Church.

The Doctors Conclusion then, which he says is, both rational and evident, is both irrational, and very dim-coloured to any eye but his own, who supposes (as he tells us here, for our farther confirmation) That he hath made it already clear from the refutation of our Plea for St. Peters Uni­versal Pastorship; whereas, it hath been mani­fested, he had not one express word of proof to make good his pretended confutation; inso­much, as I promise him a general pardon, and acquittance for the frivolousness of all the rest, [Page 172] if he can shew me in his Answer, that any one place expresly testified, that which he pretend­ed to evidence by Testimonies.

What he adds, That it was appointed by the Council of Chalcedon, de jure, that the King may erect a Primacy when he pleases. I dare be bold to call a forgery; and that, it needs an ID EST of the seventeens, to make the Councils words sound to his purpose.

What he tells us next, as a thing certain, Ibid. That King Ethelbert at the time of Austins plant­ing the Faith, did erect a Primacy at Canterbury, the seat of his Kingdom: Imperii sui totius Metro­polis, saith Bede, &c. is such a childish piece of insincerity, that it craves as much pity as it de­serves anger. For Bede onely tells us there, How the King answered them, that he could not assent to their new doctrine; yet because they were strangers, and desired to communicate to him what they believed to be true, he would not trouble them, but rather kindly entertain them, &c. Then follows the Doctors Testimony, Dedit ergo eis manfionem in Civitate Dovernensi quae Imperii sui totius erat Me­tropolis. Eisque, ut promiserat, cum administratione victus temporalis, &c. Wherefore he gave them a dwelling place in the City of Canterbury ( the Mo­ther-City of his whole Dominions) and with ad­ministration of Temporal food, he hindred them not from Preaching. So that the giving them an House in Canterbury to dwell in, and meat to eat, is a clear evidence with Master Hammond, That the King (yet a Heathen) erected a Pri­macy, when certainly he knew not then what a Primacy meant.

Lastly, To convince absolutely, That Kings were Heads of the Church, and translated and [Page 173] erected Primacies at pleasure, he concludes, That had it not been for this, there is no reason assignable, why this Nation being in Constantine's time, un­der three Metropolitans, there should be an addition of two Provinces; or that the Metropolitical power should be so removed. As if it could not be done at all, unless the King did it. What an Argument is here, to bring for an up-shot of his proofs, That the King is Head of the Church? We both acknowledge, that some removals of Ec­clesiastical Seats have been in England; but the Question is, Whether it belongs to the Kings, or the Popes, to cause these removals; he undertakes to prove it the Kings right, we deny it. The Doctor produces his Sacra An­chora, or last proof, That there is no reason assign­able why these Sees were removed, had it not been that the King had power: We answer, We can tell how to remove them without the Kings power, to wit, by the Popes; which is the question he professes to make head against: But proceeds not farther, then onely to say it must needs be the King, and that we cannot assign the Pope; and that the thing was done, and therefore the King must necessarily be the doer of it. Thus you see the Doctor is constant to his Principles, in putting his strongest Argu­ments in the rear. What man living is able to withstand so potent and cunning an Adversary?

Besides, suppose there had been neither Pope nor King, was there any impossibility that con­sent of Bishops might remove the Primacy to another See? especially, the Bishops being an­ciently of such Authority in England, That no weighty affairs were transacted, but they had a share in the managing of them. You see then [Page 174] Mr. Doctor there are two reasons assignable for the fact, which you prove to be the Kings pow­er, because he did it, and then prove he did it, because otherwise it could not have been done.

After he hath thus convinc't Kings to have power also over Ecclesiastical affairs, he proceeds to prove, that this power of theirs (taken C. 6. S. 20. away by the Laws) is resumable: and, although his supposition being shown to be groundless, there needs no answer to what he builds upon it, yet we will not be so discourteous as to slight his mistakes by affording them no Reply.

Under Pope Melchiades in Constantines time was made a Decree, that if the Donatist Bishops in Africk would return to the Unity of the Church, they should be allowed either to keep the Bishopricks they had, or be provided of others: their obstinacy permitted not this to be executed, and therefore it was recalled. Neer a hundred years after under Pope Anasta­sius, a National Council in Africa ordained a re­quest to Him and other Bishops of Italy, by whose predecessors the revocation had been made, that the Donatist Bishops might retain their places, if they would return to the Catho­like Church; the cunning Balsamon puts the provision it self for a Canon of this Council; and it had been a foul offence in the Doctor to have taken notice of the request, though he must needs have read it in Baronius, whom he cites in the very place. Therefore he concludes, that Laws made at Rome do not take away the liberty of another National Council to make contrary Laws thereunto. Although as far as can be drawn out of the fact and Council, it argues [Page 175] the direct contrary, and that it was not lawful, for their National Council to infringe what had been done at Rome: so unlucky is the Doctor in bringing Arguments so restiff and kicking, that they cast their rider out of his inte [...]t.

He tells next, that a Law though made by a Ge­neral C. 6. S. 22. Council and with the consent of all Christian Princes, yet, if it have respect to a civil right, may in this or that Nation be repealed; quoting one Ro­ger Widrington and Suarez; the latter of them, gives this reason; because such a Law made at a general meeting of Princes, is intrinsically a civil Law. But what the Doctor will do with this after he hath produced it I cannot certainly say, onely I see he must be very fruitful in unprov'd suppositions, ere it will be able to do him or his cause any good. First, he must suppose that the ti­tle of the Head of the Church is a thing not Eccle­siastical, but belonging to a civil right; next, that that same title is denyed their Kings, only upon pretence of a Canon of a Council, and not up­on Christs donation of it to St. Peter, these two unproved ând ungranted positions (I say) he must suppose gratis. Otherwise to what end does he argue that the Canons of Councils are repealable and the Kings right by consequence resumeable.

What follows next in the 23 Section, that C. 6. S. 23. this is affirmed and intended by Balsamon to all Ca­nons in general, as the judgement of learned men, in his notes on the sixteenth Canon of the Council of Carthage, hath already been answered, and shown that it is not Balsamon who affirms it, but other men; neither doth he call them lear­ned men, as the Doctor here imposes on him, but onely says, that some men say the Emperor can [Page 176] do such and such things. And he adds, that those persons proceed upon this ground, that the Em­peror may do lawfully whatever he lists.

His last Paragraph, for which (as his former custom was) he reserves the best of his strength, proves that this right of Kings to be head in Ecclesiastical affairs, cannot be alienated by prescription. The testimony he introduces is of one Sayr, a late Monk, who wrote his Book at Rome; a man likely to speak much in the Do­ctors behalf; whose opinion, in case he should say any thing against us, being but of a private Casuist, may with the like facility be rejected as alleadg'd; But what says honest Sayr? he tells us, that when prescription is neither of the Law of Nature, nor the divine Law, nor the Law of Nations, but onely the civil and Canon Law, there it extends no farther then every supreme Prince in his Realm by his Law is supposed to will that it shall be extended, and therefore that no subject can prescribe exemption from making appeal to his King, or that his Prince may not punish him when Reason and Iustice requires. Let the testimony it self be what it will, what was the Doctor dreaming on when he produced it? Marry he dreamt two things; First, that the Pope had hereto­fore prescribed against the Kings of England in their pretended right of being head in Ecclesia­stical matters; next this prescription of the Pope hath not its force from any thing but a Canon or Civil Law. These two points the Doctor dreamingly supposes to be certain principles, and it is discourtesie in us not to grant them gratis, for fear we should spoil his learned Con­clusion. What a shame is this for a Doctor of Divinity, (whereas every boy that hath been [Page 177] but two years at Cambridge, knows he is first to establish his premises firmly, ere he can claim any certainty of truth in his Conclusion) to suppose his premises true▪ and upon that grant, kindly made by himself to himself, conclude at pleasure what he lists. And what an uncon­scionable piece of affected ignorance is this, to bring a Testimony which could not possibly be applyed to his purpose without proving the two former self-made suppositions; and yet to neglect that necessary task, and conclude in these vain words, It were easie to apply this distinctly to the confirming of all that hath been said, but I shall not expatiate. It is now become an old excuse with the Doctor to cry he is out of his way, when he comes to a passage he cannot get over; but all-to-be-labours things frivolous, and which (his self-laid grounds once supposed) would be out of question.

Thus you see an end of his sixth Chapter, which was totally built upon this ground, that the Authority of Head of the Church was no more then Patriarchal, and consequently need­ed in rigour of dispute no other reply but one­ly to deny the supposition, and bid him prove it. What has been answered to each particu­lar, was onely to let the Reader see how incon­sequently and weakly he builds, even upon his own foundations.

SECT. 8.

THe Doctor having laid his tottering grounds for the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs, by alleadging some Testimonies expres­ly against himself and his cause, and not one expresly for them, but what his fellow-schisma­ticks afforded him. Next having supposed up­on his own strongly-dreaming imagination, without one direct place of any Authentick writer, against clouds of most plain Testimo­nies from Fathers and Councils, frequent in our Controvertists, and not touched by him in way of answer; against the most visible practice and universal belief of the whole Catholick world; that the Pope is onely a private Patriarch and hath no right of Jurisdiction over the universal Church. And lastly, out of a few Testimonies witnessing de facto, that Kings did erect and re­move Patriarchates, without any word exclu­ding the Churches precedent orders, having concluded that such a power belonged de jure to Kings, and was annext to a Crown: These three things, most gravely supposed, he goes a­bout to clear the Church of England from the imputation of casting off obedience to the Bi­shop of Rome at the Reformation; which is the intent of this Chapter.

[Page 179]But first he lays down at large the whole hi­story of Schism (ommitting onely the main things that might disgrace it)▪ and by what de­grees or steps this miserable Kingdom and Church came to renounce the obedience to those Ecclesiastical superiors, who had (by their own confession, for eight or nine hun­dred years) steered that-then-secure Barque in a calm unity of Faith; and which Authority C. 7. S. 2, 3, 4. all the then present world, except King Henry's now friend, but late Antagonist Luther, ac­knowledged and submitted to: First he tells us this was done by the Clergy in a Synod, recogni­zing the King to be supreme Head of the Church of England; Secondly, By their submitting them­selves to the King; and thirdly, the definition of the Universities and Monasteries after debate, that the Pope had nothing to do more in England then any other extern Bishop; that is, nothing at all: And all this in this sort concluded, subscribed and confirmed by their corporal oaths, (which word cor­poral was well put in, for their Souls and Con­sciences never went along with it) was after­wards turn'd into Acts of Parliament, in which it was resolved upon the question to defie the Pope and all his works.

In answer to which (though a bare narration how a Schism was made, deserve none) yet to devoid it of al excuse it may pretend to, I object, first, that it did not originally spring from Con­science, no not even an erroneous one, but from manifest malice and viciousness. Next that the Kingdoms assent to this il originiz'd breach was not free: And thirdly, that though both these were granted, yet this act of theirs, so largely [Page 180] laid out by Doctor Hammond, is truly and pro­perly a Schism, and entitles them schismaticks; nay the more the Doctor dilates upon it, the more schismatical he makes the breach, of which the two latter himself though never so loath must acknowledge, unless he will deny his own words.

To begin with the first, all the world knows that, till King Henry violenced the breach, all England both Clergy and Laity were as equally and as peaceably conjoyned to the Catholike Church under the government of her supreme Pastour, the Bishop of Rome, as either France or Spain are now: neither did they ever ex­press any scrupulosity that they had remained under such a Government ever since the Con­version of their first Fore-fathers; nor were scandalized at the then received Doctrine of the Church, holding as a point of Faith that the Pope was its Head, but abominated the con­trary as sacrilegious and schismatical. The first urger of the breach then was the King (as is al­so acknowledged) let us see then what or who urg'd him, that so we may trace the schism to its first original, and shew the new-born brat its right Parent.

As for the King, while his blood was yet in due temper and not over-heated with passion, that is, while his Conscience was uncorrupted, it is well known he was as humble a son to the Church and her supreme Pastour, the Bishop of Rome, as any King in Christendom is at this pre­sent; admitting appeals thither, and his juris­diction here; nay, indeed more officiously obedient then any King now-adays can pre­tend; [Page 181] writing (or else causing to be set out in his name) a Book against Luther in defence of the Roman-Catholick Faith and the Popes Authority which that Apostate rejected; for which work also he received in recompence from the Pope the title of Defender of the Faith, inherited by the succeeding Kings, though they have forfeited the claim to it by disavowing the fact which deserved it.

What was King Henries judgment of Henricus in Assert. 7. Sa­cram: contra Luth. Art. 2. the Popes Universal Authority till he fell into passion, is easie to be seen in his own Book, where he strongly and rationally proves it in these words.

Negare Lutherus non potest, quin omnis Ecclesia fidelium Sacro-Sanctam sedem Romanam velut Matrem Primatemque recognoscat ac veneretur, quaecunque saltem neque locorum distantiâ neque periculis interjacentibus prohibetur accessu. Quam­quam, si vera dicunt qui ex India quoque veniunt huc, Indi etiam ipsi tot terrarum, tot marium, tot solitudinum plagis disjuncti, Romano tamen Pon­tifici se submittunt. Ergo, si tantam & tam latè fusam potestatem neque Dei jussu Pontifex, neque hominum voluntate consecutus est, sed quâ sibi vi vendicavit, dicat velim Lutherus, quando in tantae ditionis erupit professionem? Num potest ob­scurum esse initium tam immensae potentiae, praeser­tim si intra hominum memoriam nata sit? Quod si rem dixerit unam fortasse aut duas aetates superare; in memoriam vobis redigat ex Historiis: Alioqui si tam vetusta sit, ut rei etiam tantae obliteratae sit origo, Legibus omnino cautum esse cognoscat, ut cujus▪ jus omnium hominum memoriam ita super­greditur, ut sciri non possit cujusmodi habuerit ini­tium, [Page 182] censeatur habuisse legitimum: Vetitumque esse constat omnium consensu Gentium ne quae di [...] manserunt immota moveantur.

Luther cannot deny, but all the Church of the faithful, acknowledges and venerates the See of Rome as their Mother and Chief: at least whatso­ever Church is not hindred from coming thither by distance of place or dangers in the way. Although if credit may be given to those who come from the Indies, even the very Indians separated by such vast Lands, Seas, and Wildernesses, submit them­selves to the Bishop of Rome.— Where­fore if the Pope hath obtained so great and far­spread an Authority neither by the command of God, nor the will of men, but hath arrogated it to him­self by some violence, I would know of Luther, when and at what time the Pope broke forth into the profession of so ample a Iurisdiction? Can the beginning of such a vast power be obscure? Especi­ally, if it were born within the memory of man. But if he shall say this power exceeds one or two ages, let him bring it into our memory by histories. Otherwise, if it be so ancient that the original of a matter, even of so great importance, be worn out of memory, then let him know it is expresly provided for by the Laws, that his right and title which so transcends all memory of man as it cannot be known how it began, is judged to have had a lawful original; and it is manifest that the con­sent of all Nations forbid those things should be moved which have long remained setled and firm.

Thus was King Henry affected, and in this affection continued till he found an itching I conceive not too conscientious) to his dar­ling [Page 183] Anne Bullen; she being too crafty to for­goe the glittering offer of a Crown made unto her by the love-besotted▪ King; he grew straight perplext in minde for his former mar­riage; began to think it unlawful, though till now neither he nor any in the world ever scrupled it. The devotion he bore to his Saint Anne Bullen put a new heat of Re­ligion into his tender heart; his restless Conscience (alas) perswaded him that his marriage with Katherine, although confirmed by two and twenty yeers continuance, and sealed with the endearing pledge of issue, must needs be disanuld.

The Pope was urged to dispence with his second marriage, though his former wife lived: King Henry wooed, intreated, bribed; then grew into choller, and at last plainly threatned a Schisme, unless the Pope would grant and justifie his unlawful de­sire.

Here now if the Romish Religion were made up onely of Policy (as those think whose eys her prudent and heaven-ordered Government dazles into a blind envy of her priviledges) the Pope should rather have sought pretences to yeeld to this un­warrantable request, then have denyed it with the loss of a Kingdom from his Jurisdiction; but the common Father of the Church more considered (unless we will give way to the suspicious Reports of enemies) what detriment and scandal to the whole world was likely to result from such an impious example in so [Page 184] eminent a person; then consulted with flesh and blood how to second his desire or cloak his grant with the outside of a dangerous ne­cessity.

He first counselled friendly, then reprehend­ed him Fatherly, at last refused his consent absolutely: Upon this King Henry grew furi­ous, put away his most pious and vertuous Lady Queen Katherine, whose Angelical San­ctity and Dove▪like patience he always con­tinued to honour, when as he beheaded her assumed Rival. Her disenthronement was Anna Bullens enstalment: The marriage was celebra­ted with a divorce of our poor Country from the Church: Appeals to Rome, denied under pain of death.

The Popes Authority, which had remained inviolable, ever since we English were by its means converted, utterly rejected; nay, the very name of Pope rased out of all the Books in England; Monasteries and Religious Houses pulled down or robbed, their Revenues (given by their devout Founders to pious uses) confiscare and consecrared to the Kings riotous Lust. Subscriptions forced to a new, and till that time unheard of, Church-Government, a Secular Head of an Ecclesiastical Body; they that would not subscribe, disgraced or put to death.

Thus the Reformation was first set on foot▪ and this lust of King Henry was so fruitful▪ that it at once begot Tyranny, Rapine, the Refor­mation, Adultery. Protestancy, at least the embrio of it, Sacriledge, Queen Elizabeth, and [Page 185] Schism. And, though the Doctor excuses the imputation of King Henries Sacriledge, saying, That Sacriledge is no more Schism, then it is Adultery; yet it is enough, if he grant (as he C. 7. S. 20. must) That both his Sacriledge and his Schism, were born of the same mother-occasion, the Kings lust; and so, though the Doctor say, That

Yet I answer,

Neither is this all to shew, that the first occasion of the breach, was not Conscience. The King himself desired oftentimes afterwards a recon­cilement; which being not possible, without revoking all he had done, despair made him re­solve, Over shooes, over boots, to make the rup­ture still wider, while he lived; though at his death, when it was no time to dally, the care of his Soul now out-weighing the pleasure of his Body, he with extream grief of heart repent­ed him of his Schism.

By this, one may see, how justly the Doctor pretended, Pag. 18, 19▪ as an excuse of his Schism, The care of their Conscience, and the not­admitting any sin, which the Church may oblige them to subscribe to; whereas, if the original of the breach be this (as it most evidently is) then I cannot conceive the Church obliged the ring leader of it to any sin in bidding him keep his own wife: But if you pretend another, [Page 186] which by the whole scope of this Chapter, you seem not to do, it will be found to have no nobler an extraction, then the former; onely perhaps, the carnal sin in him, may be changed into a spiritual one in you; that is, King Hen­ries lust, into your self-conceited pride, and refractory disobedience; which may indeed out [...]vy and excel him, though not excuse you.

But perhaps your grounds, which before ab­solved the Rebel, Out▪ law, and Anabaptist, will absolve him too, by saying it was King Henries present perswasion, that his wife was to be put away; and then comes in the whole eighth Paragraph of the second Chapter, to plead for the adulterous King, thus; Nay, though the error be really on his side, yet if the doctrines so pro­posed (that he ought to keep his wife) as the condition of Communion be indeed agreeable to truth, but yet be really apprehended by him, to whom they are thus proposed, to be false, and disagreeable; it will even in that case be hard to affirm, That that man may lawfully subscribe (or K [...]-Henry lawfully keep his wife) contrary to his present perswa­sion.

Thus much for the first thing I undertook to shew, that the original of this breach pro­ceeded not from Conscience; the second will also appear no less manifest, That the progress and promoting of it, was altogether as unconsci­encious.

The second consideration, which renders this Schism more inexcusable in the now Prote­stants, is, That when it first was brought into [Page 187] this Kingdom, it was no free choice of the Ec­clesiastical State; which, could the Doctor prove, he would think it perhaps, of some weight. The King using all means, both by perswasions and force, to make men subscribe; persecuting continually those that refused, and putting to death many upon the same score; among the rest, those two Lights of our Nation for learning and piety, Bishop Fisher, and Sir Thomas Moor, most intimate with the King, and in the sincerest loyalty addicted to him, till their knowing conscienciousness made them refuse to subscribe, lest they might at once pre­judice Loyalty and Religion by a preposterous obedience.

But what need more proofs, since the Doctor grants here, Section five, That it is easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers, which hung over them (by a Praemunire incurred by them) could probably have inclined the Clergy to subscribe, thus he: Though, blowing and supping both at once, he striaght-way addes, That the Rea­sons or Arguments offered in debate, were the causes (as in all charity we are to judge) of their decision. Whereas I cannot see any reason, why the Do­ctor should be so uncharitably charitable, as to judge them not▪ onely weak, but to have been hardned, and lost for the future all feeling of Conscience for their lapse; since the fore-going fear bears the weight of a strong prejudice against the clear Verdict of Conscience, and the future recantation of all the Bishops (who then subscribed) in Queen Maries time, and their persisting in Queen Elizabeths days, rather evidences, That the curb being removed, which [Page 188] misled them, it was Conscience which made them return; and strength and force of Con­science which made them afterwards persevere in the same judgment.

The third thing I am to prove, and make the Doctor confess, is, That there was a breach made, which denominates them truly and pro­perly Schismaticks. The first part is so clear, that it needs no proof, since the very deed bears witness. For first, your self acknowledge, you C. 7. S. 5. renounced the Authority of the Roman See, and cast it out of this Iland. Which Authority yet you must acknowledge likewise, That all the whole World, which before the breach you held the onely good Christians, submitted to as sacred, and descended from Christs instituti­on▪ which Authority was known and held, both by them, and your selves, till then, to be over both you and your King, in Ecclesiastical matters; and had enjoyed the possession of that Claim, confessedly eight or nine hundred years; nor this upon title onely of a Patriarchate, your Conversion, or Grant of Kings, but of an U­niversal Primacy and Pastorship over the whole Church by Christs grant, and before your con­version was dream'd on.

Lastly, The Government of the Church thus established, was held by all those whom before that day you accounted the onely Faithful, as of Divine Right, and a point of Faith; and that the denial of it, twisted into one crime, both Heresie and Schism.

A manifest breach then, and Schism there was [Page 189] made by you; first, from that supreme Eccle­siastical Governor, under whom, both you and your Ancestors, till that time, had ever-con­tinued, and next, from the Universality of Christians; by erecting to your selves a new structure of Church-Government, which all the vast Congregation of these, from whom you broke, detested and abhorred as Sacrilegious and Schismatical. Singularity therefore most clearly manifested it self in your new Church-Government; and if singularity be opposite to a community, of which, Communion is the Form, it follows evidently, That your singu­larity destroyed Communion, and so was for­mally Schism. Again, if multitudes of things of the same species cannot be made one, other­wise then by the unity of order, it follows, That what dissolves this order, dissolves the unity, and so causes a breach or Schism. But you manifest­ly unravelled all the then constituted order of Gods Church, by casting out of the Kingdom, the supreme Authority, in which, as in a knot, the other several ends were sum'd and tied up; therefore you also unravelled and broke a­sunder its unity.

This then, as it is acknowledged by you, so in it self, is as clear, as the most palpable matter of Fact can make a thing visible to the eyes of the World, that there was indeed, at least, a material breach or Schism, by you made, from that Body which communicated with the Church of Rome; and of which Body, you were formerly as properly and truly a part, as a Branch is of a Tree. To which adde your proofs out of the Fathers, in your first Chapter, af­firming▪ [Page 190] No just cause can be given for a Schism; and it will follow, that your own words clear­ly convince, and your own proofs evidently conclude you to be formally Schismaticks. I will put the Argument in form, to make it more plain, onely premising, That material Schism, as far as it concerns us, at present, is the extern action of breaking from a communi­ty: Formal, the causlesness or unjustifiableness of that material Fact; which must needs be criminal, because it admits no just excuse to plead in its behalf. Then thus,

Where all the evasion I can imagin in your behalf, is to distinguish the Major, That the Fathers meant, Criminal Separation, or the Crime of Schism could have no just cause given for it, not the material and external fact of Schism.

But first, this makes the Fathers very shal­low, to go about to shew, That no just cause can be alleaged for the crime of Schism, since every one knows there can be no just excuse possible for any crime.

Next, the Fathers there alleaged, pretend to particularize some special viciousness in [Page 191] Schism, and are to that end produced by the Doctor: But there is no speciality in Schism above other sins, to say, That no just excuse can be given for the crime of it, since the like may be said of all sins, as well as it. The fact of Schism therefore it is which they call unjustifiable; the same fact, which with a large narration you here set down, and acknowledge, that they said it, voted it, swore it; taking a great deal of pains, to prove those whom you undertook to defend, to be voluntary, deliberate, and sworn Schismaticks.

Now all the Testimonies alleaged by C. 7. S. 6. your self against Schism, come in troops, bandying against you, and your cause, as strongly, as if they had been expresly ga­thered to that purpose. As, that a Schisma­tick is à semet-ipso damnatus, self-condemned▪ which you have here very learnedly perform­ed, as I lately shewed, That ultrò ex Ecclesia se e [...]icerent, they cast themselves voluntarily out of the Church, &c. Quomodo t [...] à tot gregibu [...] scidisti? Excidisti enim teipsum. How hast thon cut off thy self from so many flocks? For thy self hast cut off thy self; of which accusation, your fifth Paragraph infers the confession: Your own voluntary recession from us, and our Government, by your self here acknow­ledged, is an indelible token, and (as it were) a visible ear-mark, that you are a stray▪sheep, and a run-away, à to [...] gregibus, from the flock.

[Page 192]This badg of a Voluntary Recession, your Church must always necessarily carry about her: Nor will you ever be able to wipe it off with all the specious Id Ests, or Criticisms, your wit can invent.

SECT. 9.

TO lay this charge of Schisme yet more home to the Protestants, we will open more clearly the nature of Schism, and de­scribe it more exactly, that the Reader may see how perfectly the Protestant Church is cast in the mold of it. For the better con­ceiving of which, it will be necessary to shew first what it is, which makes the Sons of the Catholike Church like brethren live together in Unity: and this will lead us into the con­sideration first of the formal Unity it self, and secondly of the Reason and Ground of this Unity.

The Unity it selfe consists in two things; one is, the submitting to and communicating in one common Head or Government; the Authority of which, if it be establish't in an undoubted possession (as it was at the begin­ning of Mr. Drs Reformation) is as necessary to the Ecclesiastical Community, as the ac­knowledgement of the Undoubted Supreme Magistrate is necessary for the Unity of any temporal Common-wealth. The second is the communication of the member-churches with one another, consisting in the acknow­ledging the same Articles of Faith, and u­sing the same Sacraments &c. To these was [Page 194] added anciently communicatory letters; which afterwards, by reason of the perfect colligation of the several members with their Head, was ne­glected as unnecessary.

And these two Unities may be conceived a­gain either negatively or positively. By negative Communion in the same Head, I mean a not disacknowledging only of the supreme Pastor; or at least such an indifferent acknowledgment, as having no tie upon it, may be at pleasure re­fused; and the Authority rejected. As likewise negative communication between the member-Churches imports either a [...]leight not denying of communion, or such an acceptance and em­bracing of it, as, having no obligation, may at pleasure be turned into disacceptance and dis­avowing.

On the contrary; these two communications are then called positive, when there is a positive obligation to acknowledge that Head, and communicate with the other Churches. And this is that which can only make a Church, and found Church-government: Or rather indeed there can be no Government imaginable, either spiritual or corporal, without such positive communion, for a company of men without an expresse and positive obligation to obey their Superiors, and comport themselves towards their fellows, according to the laws, may in­deed be called a multitude (such as is a [...]e [...]vus [...]ap [...]dum, an heap of stones) but not an Army, City, Commonwealth or Church, which imply con­nexion and order.

Neither is the obligation of only Charity sufficient (though in it sel [...]e a great Ciment of Unity) but it must be a visible one, resulting [Page 195] out of the very Nature of Government, which is visible and exterior. Besides, Charity ex­tends universally to all, even those out of the Church; and therfore cannot be that pro­per, peculiar and sole tie, which unites the Faithfull, as they are a Common-wealth of Beleevers.

The second thing is the Reason of this double Union, or rather of this double positive obliga­tion of Unity in the Church; which to con­ceive more clearly, the Reader may please to consider, that a Christian is a Christian by his Faith; and so a Congregation of Christians is a Community of the Faithfull. Whence it followes, that the Unity of the Faithfull, as such, being in Faith, their faith must be one; the ground therefore of the Unity of their faith is the ground of the Unity of the faith­full; but the infallibity of the Church is the ground of the Unity of faith: Therefore the same Infallibility is the reason of the Unity or positive Communion of the Faithful. This Rule therefore, broken or rejected, dissolves all po­sitive Communion amongst Christians, both in Faith and Sacraments. For what tie could they possibly have to communicate in any thing con­sequent to Faith, as Sacraments, Government, or any good work, unless they first communi­cate in faith, the rule and ground of those Sa­craments, Government, and good works; and how can they communicate in faith, if there be no Infallibility to binde them to an Unity in it? The denying therefore of this Infallibility is the reason of all Schism, and even of Heresie too; nay, it selfe is the Heresie of Heresies, opening a liberty for every man to embrace his owne [Page 196] new-fangled opinions and introducing prin­ciples of incertitude, and at best probability in Religion, whose natural course is to wander at last into a Civil kind of Atheism. Nor can there be any rational pretence to oblige mens consciences to a Religion, whose con [...]est un­certainty must needs infer an absolute abo­lishment of all Church discipline, and con­tent it selfe with a meer voluntary obedience, that is, legitima [...]e all Schism, by taking away the very possibility of Schismatizing.

Another reason may be given, why the deny­ing this infallibility perverts & quite overthrows all unity in Church-government. For the preser­vation of the Churches unity in government being essential to Religion, that is, to the Art of breeding up mankind to know and love God, it cannot possibly be conceived to be of hu­mane but div [...]ne institution; and therefore, being taught and instituted by Christ, belongs to Faith, and so requires to be recommended by the same never-e [...]ring Rule, which teaches us the rest of his Doctrine. He therefore that denies this Infallibility, hath no sufficient rea­son to beleeve the Article of the Churches Go­vernment, and consequently will easily finde evasion to excuse his obedience to her com­mands.

The Unity of the Church being thus clearly delivered, there needs no new task to shew what Schism is; it being nothing else but the unknitting and dissolving these several manners of this Unity and Communion, and in breaking a [...]under that tye and obligation, by which these Unions of the several members with one ano­ther, and of all with the Head, are firm'd [Page 197] and made inviolable. What remaines to be done is onely to shew that this Anatomy of Schism is the perfect picture, nay the very Sce­leton of the carkasse-Church of England; and that they have infring'd the lawes of Unity in all the aforesaid manners.

And as for the first, which is the Unity of all the Members under one Head or Chief Bi­shop and Pastour of the Church, in whom, at the time of the breach, all the Hierarchical Order was summed up, as in the highest top of that Heaven-reaching Climax, you confesse here Sect. 5. that you cast it out of this Island. The Authority, I say, of the chief Pastourship of the Bishop of Rome, to which you and the whole Church you were then in, were subject; acknowledged by you not Patriarchal onely, but a large step higher, to wit, universally ex­tended over all Patriarchs and the whole Church, was that which you cast out, and subtracted your selfe from its obdiencee. If then you will hold to your former grounds, so largely to your disadvantage laid in your third Chapter, that it is Schism in a Deacon or Priest to disobey a Bishop, in a Bishop to refuse sub­jection to his Aroh-Bishop &c. How will you excuse your selves from Schism in rejecting the Authority of the Head of the Church (unless you can evidence that Authority null; that is, that Doctrine false) to which you had been subject ever since your first Conversion, as to a more superiour Governour than either Bishop, Arch-Bishop, Primate or Patriarch. In vaine then was your long frivolous digression, that Kings may erect and translate Patriarchates, since a greater Authority than a Patriarch was [Page 198] rejected by you and cast out of this Island; which no King ever pretended to erect and re­move at pleasure. In vain do you think to shel­ter your Schism under the wings of the Regal power; since your King, being at that time actually under the Pope, as far as concerned Ecclesiastical matters, and acknowledging his supreme Pastourship, lies himself as deeply ob­noxious to the charge of Schism, as you his sub­jects and followers; or rather much more, as being the Ringleader of the breach. So as no plea is so unwarrantable as to bring him for your excuse, who is the person accounted most guilty, and who needs a plea himself for his own far more inexcusable Schism and dis­obedience. But what excuse you bring or not bring concerns us not at present; onely this remains certain and acknowledg'd, that you cast out of the Island that Supreme Authority, in which at that time, the Faithful of the Church you were in, communicated; and in which chiefly consisted the Unity of the Hie­rarchical Government, arising orderly and knit np peaceably in acknowledgment of and sub­jection to that One Head. Whether you did this justly or no belongs to the formal part of Schism, and shall be discussed in the follow­ing Section.

Next, for what concerns the Unity of one Member-Church with another, it is no lesse evident you have broke asunder all positive Communion, not in Government onely (as hath been shewn) but in Faith and Sacraments with all Churches which communicated with the See of Rome, whom, before your Schism, you [...] the onely and sole true Members of [Page 199] Christs mystical Body. That you broke from their Communion in Government hath been al­ready manifested from your rejecting her Su­preme Governour, in the subjection to whom they all communicated. Nor is it less evident that you have broke from their Faith, as ap­peares from the irreconcileable diversity of the points of Faith between us, and the large dif­ference between your 39. Articles, and our Council of Trent. Nor has the Unity you and those Churches had in Sacraments esca­ped better; Five of them being par'd away as unnecessary; the sixth transelementa­ted from the sacred price of our Redemption into the egena elementa of bread and wine: and the seventh onely, that is, Baptism, with much adoe remaining inviolate, lest you should for­feit the name of Christians also, together with the reality. If the denial of these, and your styling the best act of our Religion, to wit, the the oblation of the Unbloudy Sacrifice (in your 31. Article) a blasphemous fiction and pernicious imposture; and lastly, if your persecuting us to death be signes of a positive communion with us; then killing may be called kindness, and rail­ing votes against us, may perhaps be styled Com­municatory letters with us.

All Communication then both positive and nega­tive, with the Church you were in formerly, was by you renounced; yet at least some pretence of excuse had been producible, if, departing out of that Church, you had either kept or renew'd Communion with some other, which was acknowledged by all the World, or at least by your selves before the breach to have been a true one. But you can pretend no such [Page 200] thing as Communication with any Church either true or even fals. For first at your dawning or rather twilight in King Henry's dayes (for your progress hath not been to noon-day-light, but to midnight) you had nothing at all to doe with any other Church in Christendom. Since that time, though you have indeed a kinde of Communication with some few of your fellow Schismaticks, yet, if well examin'd, it is ne­gative onely. Faction against Rome initiates you into so much friendship as to converse with the Calvinists; sometimes to call them Bre­thren; somtimes to be merry with your double­jug Companions in the Synod of Dort, of whose drunken and beastly behaviour, wallowing worse then swine, in their own vomits, I have heard a Pillar of your own Church scanda­lously complain, having too much spirit of draff forced by them into his quea [...]ier stomach. Though. I say, you may thus communicate with them in eating and drinking (in which acts * before you made All Communion consist) Part. 1. Sect. 19. yet any other positive tie and obligation either with them or any others to conserve you in Communion, so as you may be said to make up one Ecclesiastically-politick Body, united by some inviolable Order, such an obligation, I say, could never be discover'd between you and any other Church good or bad, true or fals. The Greek Church holding almost all that we doe, and scarce two points with you, which are against us, as your friend Alexander Rosse hath particularly told you. The Lutherans hold much more with us in opposition to you, than with you in opposition to us. The Cal­ [...]inists are excluded by the most understanding [Page 201] Protestants from their Church, since they admit not the Government of Bishops, held by the others to be of Divine Right, nor the Pro­testants Fundamental, or, as the Doctor calls it, Cap. 7. Sect. 11. The Bottome of the Foundation of the Reformation; to wit, that the King is Head of the Church. The 39. Articles, which (as the Kings Supremacy is the Imprimis, so these) are all the Items of the Protestants Faith, obtain not a total admission from any Church but themselves; nor amongst themselves neither, their great Champion, Mr. Chillingworth, rejecting them at his pleasure. Nor is there any visible form of Government uniting them all together, but they are forced to fly sencelesly to an invisible one; either of onely Christ in Heaven, or onely Charity: pre­tences to gull the easie vulgar, not to satisfie prudent men; who know that the Church, though it be a spiritual Common-wealth, breed­ing up Soules to a state of a future Eternity; yet, while it is here on earth, it is a Common­wealth of Christians, visibly comporting or dis­comporting themselves in order to Christs laws, of which the Church is the Keeper and Con­server; and therefore it must have visible Go­vernours, without expecting a miraculous re­course to Christ in Heaven, to resolve emergent difficulties, or to cherish and punish her wel­demeaned or misdemeaned subjects.

But for a more full demonstration that the Church of England has no perfect Communion with the Greek, Lutheran, Calvinist, or any other Church, I refer the Reader to the learned Exomolog [...]sis or Motives &c. of Mr. Cressy, a late Protestant Dean, but now Religious of the an­cient and holy Order of St. Benet, where the [Page 202] Doctor may also read (among other controver­sies excellently treated) the charge of Schism, sufficiently prov'd against his Church.

Perhaps the Doctor will alledge, that their positive Communion with other reformed Chur­ches consists in the acknowledgment of Gods Word and the holding to it. But I would ask him, whether he means they agree in the Name of Gods Word, or in the Thing, or Sence of it. If in the Name onely, then all that have the title of Christians, that is, all Hereticks and Schismaticks in the World are of one Commu­nion; nothing being more rife in their mouths and pens, than wrong alledged testimonies out of the Bible; the bare name then is not suffi­cient, it must be the Thing, that is, the sence and meaning of Gods Word, in which he must make their positive Communion consist; but since they have no one certain, known, and com­monly acknowledged Rule, by which to inter­pret Gods word, and fetch out the true inward sence, lurking in the imperspicuous bark of the letter, it followes they have no positive way or meanes to communicate in the same sence, and therefore no positive unity can be grounded on that pretence. And it would be as sencelesse to object that they communicate at least in fundamentals, found in Gods word; since the Scripture not telling them, they cannot tell certainly themselves which points are funda­mentals, which not, all being there with equal authority and like tenour delivered and pro­posed to them. And if we should goe to rea­son to know what are fundamentals, surely reason would give it that the rules of Faith and Government are more fundamental, than all the rest.

[Page 203]No positive communion therefore have they with our Church, as little with their fellow schismaticks; it being the nature of boughs separated, not to grow together into one tree, after they have once lost conne­ction with the root; Where they are cut off, there they lie; and though for a short time they retain some verdure, and some little moystning sap, counterfeiting life; that is, as much Religion as serves them to talk of God and Christ) yet after a while they wither, ro [...], and molder away into an hundred atomes of dust; or else (if they chance to be gathered up, or taken away soo­ner) they serve for nothing but to be thrown into the fire.

SECT. 10.

THat you have made then a material breach or schism is as evident, as fact and reason can make the most manifest thing to the clearest understanding. The formality of schism comes next to be enquired into, which consists in its injustifiablenesse, or doing it without just causes or motives; which consequently unlesse you can shew, you must unavoidably be concluded for­mal schismaticks: And though the testimonies of the Fathers, which you formerly produced, af­firming that there can be no just cause given of schism, render all further proof unnecessary; yet [Page 204] to make this matter stil more manifest, I desire Mr. Hammond, in the Churches behalfe, that he would give me leave to summon him to the Bar of Reason, that we may see what he can answer for himselfe, and his friends, whose defence here he undertakes.

Do not you know that the Church (in whose bowels your ancestors, til K. Henry began the breach, were bred) had no other form of Government then that which now is of the Bi­shop of Rome; held chiefe Pastour of the univer­sal Church, and supreme in Ecclesiastical mat­ters; and that, til the breach was made, you held as sacred, and were under that govern­ment?

I pretend not to deny it; for this is the very authority I told you in my 7. c. 5. sect. we cast out of this Island. Besides Kings can erect and remove Patriarchates at pleasure.

Do not answer, (Dr.) de Cepis, when we ask de alliis; you might have sav'd your labour in a great part of your Book, wher you slipt the que­stion, and digrest to Patriarchs. Our question is not of Patriarchal, but of Papal Authority; and so we ask you, whether it be not evident, that this Papal Authority was in actual possession of this Islands subjection at the time of the breach; and so had been for 900 yeers, ever since Pope Gregory sent Austin the Monk to convert the Sax­ons, forefathers to us English.

I know no Authority he ever had in Eng­land more than Patriarchal.

Do not you know that the Popes Au­thority then acknowledged in England was held above Patriarchs, and therefore more then Patriarchal; and that you grant you cast out of [Page 205] this Island, not a Patriarchal Authority only, but a Papal one?

True; but the pretended Authority was usurpt, and not according to Gods Ordinance.

How know you it was usurpt? wil bare probabilities be a sufficient ground to renounce an authority so long establisht in possession, held sacred ever before, and to which your selves were till then subject; wil, I say, a meer proba­bility, that perhaps that authority was not sa­cred, but unjust, serve your turn to excuse you from disobedience in renouncing it?

No Sir, we have evidence it was unjust; and that the Church we were brought up in erred in that point of beliefe.

This evidence of yours must either be a Demonstration from natural reason; or an undeniable testimony, either divine or hu­mane.

I doe not pretend natural demonstra­tion; but we have evident testimonies against it.

Can you manifest that those testimo­nies (and the like may▪ be said of Arguments from natural reason) have not been answer'd twenty times over by our Writers; and (in case they have) can you shew that you have replied upon all their answers, so as they bear now no probable shew of satisfaction? if not, you cannot call your testimony an evidence. Next, are you certain that our Authors cannot produce an hundred testimonies for one of yours; or at least an equal number; and those seeming as expresly, or more, to make for us, as yours doe for you? If so, your testimonies are at least counterpois'd with the weight of [Page 206] ours, and so cannot make an evidence, but hang only in the hovering scales of a doubtfull probability. Thirdly, are your testimonies such that they are of greater weight than the judg­ment of all the Catholick world, holding the Pope Head of the Church (as our greatest ad­versaries, the Puritans, say for twelve hundred years, or, as you say, two hundred years later) are they of that weight to over-ballance so far­extended, so numerous, and so learned an Authority? If not, they are so far from evi­dences, that they fall short of being probabi­lities.

I see you will hold to no authority, but that of your own Church, and this is a method of security beyond all Amulets.

And good reason too, unless you can shew us a greater.

A greater we have, id est, Gods word, out of which we can evidence, that your Church, we were brought up in, was fallible, yea en'd in many points, and particularly in this of the Popes Supremacy.

You cannot with any face pretend an evidence from Scripture against us, unless you can evidence a greater faculty and meanes to interpret those Oracles in you or your first Re­formers, than there was in the Church you left: And since these meanes are either super­natural light or natural parts and knowledge, you must evidence an advantage above us in one of these▪ And first, as for natural knowledg, you can­not be ignorant, that at the time of the breach, the Catholick Church had an hundred Doctors for one of yours; what an unproportion'd ad­vantage then must that number swel to, if all the [Page 207] learned men in the many foregoing ages, with­out any one of your Sect (then unheard of) to counterballance them, be heaped into one Bulk, and those too, such as your selves must acknowledge far more eminent in Schoole Di­vinity, study in Scripture, and all kinde of Learning both divine and humane, than any of King Henry's fellow-reformers were ever deemed; or if you stiffely deny an advantage, we as stiffely pretend it; and so leave it a drawn ma [...]ch for what concernes their parts; yet you your selves must giant, you are in­comparably overpower'd in the numerous mul­titude of them.

In natural meanes then of interpreting Scri­pture, our extraordinary advantage over your Reformers, makes it an impudence in them to pretend their advantage evident. It must be then an evidence of a supernatural faculty in interpreting Gods word, better than their Superiours and Pastors, which can make them pretend to a clear knowledge thence that our Church hath err'd: But since no supernatural thing, that is latent and invisible in it selfe, can be evidenced or acknowledged to be such, without some exteriour token exceeding the power and skill of nature, as are miracles, gift of tongues, &c. none of which you can lay claim to; it followes, that neither your re­forming forefathers nor your selves can produce evidence of any better meanes, either supernatu­ral or natural to interpret Scriptures than the Church you left; therefore no evidence that they more truely interpreted it than that Church; therfore none thence that the Church err'd; therefore none from divine Authority, [Page 208] and no humane authority being found compa­rable to that of the Church, it followes they can have as little evidence from thence. Evi­dent therefore it is that you neither had nor now have any evidence at all, but onely a pro­bable perhaps, that the Church erred; which being too sleight a Reason to shake off subjection to an authority so long establish't and held as a point of Faith by the present and past world, consequently they who upon no better grounds should shake it off, are guilty of a most rash and grievous disobedience, and Schism. But your selfe here confesse Sect. 5. that you cast this Authority out of this Island, without power to evidence that that Church erred, as hath been shewn. What excuse then can you alledge to clear your Father-Reformers, and your selfe from a most irrational, and selfe­condemning Schism, nay more, heresie?

At least they had such proofes as they thought evident, and bred in them a present perswasion that the Church hath erred, which they could not in conscience goe against; and therefore it was hard dealing to punish them with Excommunication for proceeding conscientiously according to their present perswasion.

I doubt not but they might have a pre­sent perswasion that the Church hath err'd; but I doubt much whether this present perswasion be sufficient to excuse them either from sin or punishment. For this perswasion of theirs is either rational or irrational; if rational, a sufficient reason may be render'd why they deny'd so qualified a Government; and reason it selfe telling us that no reason less than evidence is sufficient, it would follow that evidence may [Page 209] be rendred that the Government was injust' which, as you see, could not: Irrational there­fore was that present perswasion of theirs; and if so, not sprung from reason, therefore from unreasonable passion, that is, from vice, therefore sinful and obnoxious to punishment, as all o­ther like perswasions are, which make men think and act against their duties and obligati­ons; Besides, all the Logick we have hither­to heard, assures us nothing can convince the understanding but evidence, and therefore men take so much paines about the moods and fi­gures, that the discourse may prove evident; wherefore whatsoever assent comes not out of Evidence, must come from our will and wil­fulnesse; and by consequence cannot be free from desert of punishment, if it happen to be wrong and wrongfull. Neither availes it to pretend invincible ignorance, since no man li­ving, if free from a proud spirit, can be so sot­tish as not to know that it is his obligation to obey his Superiors so long setled in the possessi­on of their command, till most open and unde­niable Evidences, and not seeming ones onely, should discover that Authority null. And, if the obligation be of belief, he must condemn the Churches judgment in not seeing the falsity of her doctrine, and prefer his own before millions more learned, who liv'd and dy'd in that faith, which savours too strong of a self­conceited pride; or else imagin so little since­rity left in the Church, that all see and wilful­ly adhere to a known falshood, but himselfe; which is a plain sign of a rash and Pharisaical presumption. And are not those punishable? yet the Doctor would stroke such a fellow on [Page 210] the head, and give him sugar plums for following his present perswasion and self-conceit, which he nicknames conscience. Nay he highly applauds his first Reformers, whose conscience no doubt was tainted with the same leaven. The Mate­rial Schism then, which was manifestly your fact, is made formal by your want of evidence, that the doctrine was erroneous and consequently her Government violable; Both which joyn'd to­gether give you in plain termes your own name of flat proper and formal Schismaticks, and enti­tle you to all the bed-roll of vices and curses which you hoarded up for your self and your friends in your first Chapter.

SECT. 11.

BUt it is now high time to returne to over­look the work; who, after the declaration of the matter of fact, confesses no great hold can be taken from the freeness of the Clergy's de­termination, and therefore the whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry, whether the Bishop of Rome were Supreme Head or Governour of the Church of England in the reign of King Henry the eighth. That is, we are come about again to the beginning of the Book. But I am mista­ken, he tells us he hath largely disproved, in [Page 211] his Chap. 4, 5, 6. all pretensions from St. Peters Supremacy, and from Englands Conversion; (to whose particular answers I refer the Reader for full satisfaction) and he has now invent­ed a new ground of the Popes Suprema­cy in England, to wit, the voluntary Con­cession of our Kings. What the Doctor meanes I cannot imagine. Some particular priviledges, and (as I may say) pious curtesies have, out of a special respect, been granted by our Kings to that See, to whom they owe their first know­ledge of Christ, and his Law; but these are not the thing in debate; The right of Supreme Authority is our question; now, who ever held this to come from the Concession of our Kings? Yet this ayr-beating Champion of Schism first fancies this to be our tenet, and then beats it all to dirt. He is as valiant as Sir Iohn Falstaff; let him tell his own story, and hee'l make you beleeve he has kill'd eleven Enemies, when but one opposed him. We onely found the Popes Primacy upon his Succession to St. Peter: This is the onely adversary-point the Doctor is to combate, which he hath most weakly opposed with grosse mistakes, palpable contradictions to Scripture, and pinning all the words that made for his purpose to every testimony, as hath been shew'd: But to counterfeit a tri­umph, he makes every trivial thing, done either by or about the Pope, to be the very ground of his Primacy, and then falls to work and im­pugnes them as really, as if he thought we held them. The Pope cannot doe any good action, or convert a Nation, but that must be the ground of his Universal Pastorship over us, and be impugned accordingly; A beggerly penny [Page 212] cannot be given to the Pope by our Kings for pious uses, and out of a gratefull obligation, but the poore Peter-pence and such like petty grants must presently be the Popes Universal Authority, given him by the Concession of our Kings, and that, as such, must be impugned. The Kings of England, France, &c. cannot be said by G▪ de Heimburgh to be free from swearing obedience to the Pope at their instalment (an obligation peculiar to the Empire of Germany) but presently the Doctor concludes hence an absolute power in our Princes; I suppose he means in Ecclesiastical matters, for in temporal, none de­nies it; so as now the very ceremony of swear­ing obedience to the Pope, is become the very granting of the formal universal Pastorship; and they that doe it not are concluded to be free from the Popes Jurisdiction; though he knows well enough, that the King of France, who as he confesses performes no such ceremonious courtesie towards him, acknowledg'd not­withstanding himselfe subject to him, as the Head of Gods Church. Lastly, (which he touches here againe) he cannot read in some Authors that Kings de facto executed the erecting and removing of Patriarchates, though the testi­mony doe not exclude the Churches fore▪ or­dering it; but presently the Popes Universal Power must be supposed to be transdignifi'd in­to a private Patriarchate, and as a Patriarchate impugned. Thus nothing can come amiss to the Doctor: Every argument he undertakes to manage is equally strong and unresistable. A pot gun will serve him to batter downe the walls of Rome. He was borne a Controver­tist; and it is an even wager whether hee [Page 213] be better in the gift of Use and Applicatio­on, or in the Art of Dispute and Consuta­tion.

Next comes another Dilemma or forked Ar­gument, which though, proceeding on the C. 7. S. 8. former false supposition, needs no answer; yet for the Readers recreation we will afford a glance. First, it is observable, that he never brings this bug-bear Argument upon the stage, but when he has made a Prologue for it of some forg'd supposition of his own; and then the Thing, in vertue of that, acts and talkes through the vizard of a mistake; and yet, ere it comes to a Conclusion, the Doctors weak reason cracks to make both ends meet. The summe of it is this, that The Authority of the Pope was either originally in our Kings, so as they could lawfully grant it to the Pope, or not; if not, then the grant was invalid: If it were, then either the same power remaines still in the King to dispose of it to some other; or else, it does not remaine in him, and▪ then is his power diminish't, and so the Act is againe invalid. I answer, the Authority of the Pope was never held, by concession of our Kings, in any other sence than this, that our Kings (as all other Christian Kings did) yeeld­ed him what they held as of Faith to be due to him, that is, Supremacy in Ecclesiastical mat­ters; and therefore that they not onely law­fully granted it, but could not deny▪ it, except most unlawfully. Therfore their act of yeeld­ing to it was not invalid, but very valid for what it was intended, which was to expresse their obligation in deferring to the Head of the Church what was his due. Where­fore he cannot dispose of it to any other or [Page 214] remove it, since the Papacy (which is the thing in question) was never imagin'd at any private Kings disposal till Doctor Hammonds time. Again his inference, that if it were in the Kings Power, the same Power remaines still in them to dispose of it, is as groundless as the former; for we see by experience that Kings often diminish their power, by yeelding sometimes Forts, sometimes an Island or Coun­try to an over-powering enemy; and yet that act of theirs held valid notwithstand­ing.

Then (to prove this assertion) as the fellow that put foure kinds of men that pray, some that pray for others and not for themselves, othersome for themselves not others, some for themselves and others, but some neither for themselves nor others; or the Preacher, upon the Text seek and you shall finde, put four kinde of seekers, some that seek and finde not, others that finde and seek not, others that both finde and seek, but others that neither seek nor find: So the Doctor tells us here, that there are two C. 7. Sect. 9. sorts of gifts, one that is so given that it is gi­ven; another that is so given that it is kept with the giver; that is, not given; And then brings for an instance this curious peece of Phi­losophy. Thus the Sun communicates his beames, and with them his warmth and influence, and yet retaines all which it thus communicates, and accor­dingly C. 7. Sect. 10 withdraweth them againe. This Book (as the Reader must conceive) is the Doctors En­ [...]yclopoedia, encompassing at once the whole world of Sciences. He hath before given us notice of Scriptures, Fathers, Councils, History, Law, Greek, Hebrew, Grammar, and Criticismes: [Page 215] now he gives here a proof of Philosophy and knowledge of Nature, and lets thee understand so strange a truth as no man, unlesse he were out of his wits, could imagine; to wit, that the very beames, sent hither by the Sun, are notwithstanding retain'd there still; and therefore are in more far-distant places at the same time; so granting, that the ordinary course of Nature performes more in a creature, than he will grant Gods omnipotency can work in the glorify'd body of our Lord Creator in the ever-blessed Sacrament. Nay more, he assures us that the Sun ACCORDINGLY withdraweth them again. What he meanes by ACCORD­INGLY in that place I cannot tell; lesse can I understand how the Sun withdrawes his beames again; I see indeed effects in Nature of warmth witnessing that they remain here incorporated in other bodies, but I see no natural causes to bandy the Suns beames back to him; much lesse pullyes and long strings in the Sun to withdraw them (as the Doctor expresses it) accordingly too. But the Doctor had fram'd his ▪observation from the accesse and recesse of the beames of a candle in his own eyes, when he was drowsie; and dreamt it seemes [...]at night, that the eye of Heav'n had the like fa­culty.

Your next parity from God Almighty shoots beyond the mark: No bargain can be made with him by reason of his Universal Dominion over his creatures by which they may challenge a proprietary right to his gifts; therefore none with Kings over their fellow-creatures; that is something impious, unless you had modera­ted the harsh-sounding expression: Neither [Page 216] are we properly our own, for so we might dis­pose of our own life at pleasure, and the Book of your Donne, holding selfe-murder lawful, might pass as allowable, whose wit knew better how to maintain a Paradox and with more plausible grounds, then you doe your Faith. But the truth is, that God never takes away what he gives; but is then said to take away any thing, when he withholds his boun­tifull hand from a further bestowing it.

This supposed, he tells us the King retaines yet the power granted to the Pope, and so may dispose of it to a Bishop of his own; and that the Kings power frees them from that o­bedience and cleares the whole businesse of Schism. Alas! what a weak reed you catch at to secure you from falling into the gulfe of Schism? Huic ipst partono opus est quem defenso­rem paras. Your Patron, the King, needs a Patron himselfe. You should first evidence that the King might lawfully renounce the so long possessed, so universally acknowledg'd authority over himselfe as well as his subjects in Ecclesiastical matters, ere you lanch forth into such selfe-said, and selfe-authoriz'd Con­clusions; otherwise to run widly forwards on your own seign'd and false suppositions, first that his title of Universal Pastor comes by Concession of our Kings; next, that our Kings were not found subject to that Authority; and thirdly (which is yet higher) that our Kings are over that Authority and can dispose of it at pleasure; such voluntary talking as this, I say, is better for a Sermon to your good wo­men, where all Coine goes currant, than for a controversie, where no progress is allowable [Page 217] but what is already made good by undeniable testimonies and well-grounded Reasons.

He shuts up the Paragraph with talking of the Popes willingness to enlarge his Territory. True Sir, the Church is his Territory, which he is dayly both willing and industrious to en­large, by converting barbarous Nations to Christs Faith; as he did once ours amongst the rest; for which you are so thanklesly disac­knowledging. This Territory we hope and pray may be enlarged beyond the envy of all maligners, till all the Ends of the Earth, and plenitudo Gentium the whole company of the Gentiles shall see the salvation of God. Among whom the Church that Heaven-planted Tree, which beares folia ad sa [...]itatem Gentium is even at this day spreading out her sacred branches; and the Authority of her Head goes on not intensively but extensively enlarging; while your poor broken bough, rootless and sapless, shrinks dayly into nothing, resolved already into its first principles, of a few seditious, dis­obedient spirits; whom at first common ha­tred and then fragrant factiousness against the Church held together; now, that being a far off and such a common interest not so necessary, the spirit of Schism, kept in a while by humane policy, begins at length to work, and like a swelling torrent scornes to be held in by a weak bank of turfe, which once forc't its pas­sage through the midst of a Rock; and with good reason too, for why should an acknowledg'd fallibility bridle them now, whom before an ac­knowledg'd infallibility could not restrain.

But you would make Queen Mary co partner C. [...]. Sect 11 in your Schism, and alledge her retaining for [Page 218] some time the title of Head of the Church; and her refusing to admit of a Legate from Rome; which things you say will make it lesse strange, that this Supreme Power of the Popes should be disclaimed in the time of King Henry the eighth. Yet, as for the first, you know well enough that she never pretended it as her lawful title, but onely permitted that the former phrase of the Lawes, which nick-named her so, might be used; till she, having setled the turbulent spirits, raised by your good doctrine, which opposed her renouncing it, found an handsom occasion to disclaim that title, usurp't by her late Predecessors. Your selfe confessing, that she urg'd the matter afterwards in a Parliament, and with much difficulty obtained it. Which plainly cleares her, and makes your bringing her Authority upon the stage very frivolous, the fact being acknowledgedly against her will. But I see not how it can excuse you; rather it accuses your Brethren at that time both of schism and impudence, in forcing their Princess to retain an unjustly assumed title against both her Will and her Conscience. What force he puts in her denying a Legate no man knowes, unless he could dive into the mysterious depth of the Doctors thoughts. For, besides that there was another Legate in England at that time, All Catholick Countries when they saw it convenient have done the same, and yet ar [...] reputed true sons of the Church, since they re­taine as humble an Obedience to the See of Rome, and as firmly acknowledge her authority as those who admit them. But I see the Doct [...] knowes not in what the absolute Supremacy (as he calls it) of the Pope consists; Every wa­ving [Page 219] of any request or favour is with him a flat denial and rejection of the Authority; as if they who denied the former Kings of Eng­land subsidies, deny'd them to be Monarchs or Heads of the Common-wealth. Neither can I see that this, as you fancy, makes your breach lesse strange; but rather much stranger, that whereas Rome was so farre from that tyranny falsely by you imputed to her, that you might have (as Queen Mary and as Catholick Kings now doe) deny'd to admit the Popes Legats, and all such flowers of pious friendship, or (as you will call them) extravagant encroach­ments, and yet have remained in true charity with the faithful and Communion with that your Superiour; yet neither this moderate car­riage nor any thing else could satisfie your re­solute and desperate disobedience; but to reject the very Authority it selfe, utterly to C. 7. Sect. [...] extirpate it root and branch, and cast it out of this Island.

This renouncing then of the chiefest Au­thority of the Church you left, you call, in a strange expression the Bottome upon which the Foundation of Reformation was laid; upon which by the same workmen (who pulled downe a C. 7. Sect. 12 good house to build a worse) was erected a su­perstructure: in King Henry's dayes, the number of the Sacraments, translation of the Bible, and the use of the Lords prayer in the English Tongue; as if the Lords Prayer was never used in the vulgar language till King Henry's holinesse or­dained it. As for the Kings Vicar-general, who presided in his duely-assembled Councel (as you call it) I can say no more of him, but he was a proper fellow. Domini similis, like his [Page 220] Master; Vicegerent to him in that high and mighty title of the Chief of Schismaticks, the rotten Head of the corrupted body.

But Mr. Doctor proceeds in his Schism, much C. 7▪ Sect. 13 farther advanced (as he tells us) in King Edwards dayes: Yet first he is resolved to clear the way, and remove a rub which he apprehends very dangerous, to wit, lest we should think to prove the acts made in his dayes invalid and vilifie them, because the King was yet alas but a child, assuring us therefore that the Lawes of this Realm ordain that what is done by the Protector is done by the Child, and that too, as well as if the Child had been a man. But I will secure the Doctor of his s [...]are; for though the child had been a man and had had as many wives as his Father, yet neither he nor they had been a jot fur­ther from being plain Schismaticks; unless this child or man had been wiser, holier, and olde [...] than all Gods Church, so to justifie the breach which his Father had made.

Very pitiful then had been the Doctors re­ [...]uge, had the infant King the Head of thei [...] Church been at yeares of discretion; but ye [...] far more pitiful is it, the then Protector steering the helm of the Common-wealth; who [...]e traiterous and ambitious designe to intercept Queen Mary's succession being manifestly dis­cover'd, whatever he acted against Catholicks or their Religion (Q. Mary's supports) ought in all reason but the Doctors be rather imputed to interest than piety. But nothing can prejudice (as he thinks) the regularity of his Reforma­tion. Schism once admitted, as sacred, no won­der if tyranny, treachery and ambition be not [Page 221] onely lawful but pious and commendable. Yet his tyranny in secular matters is become even the Supream Power in Ecclesiastical; and so the Reformation goes on in the Doctors Book currantly and merrily; especially though some Bishops resisted and were punisht, yet (as the Doctor sayes) Arch-Bishop Cranmer (who kept a Wench in King Henries time) and the far greater number of Bishops joyning with him, all is well and the Reformation valid: Then to cry quits with us for their persecuting our Bishops, he puts us in mind how their friends in Queen Maries dayes, were not onely persecuted with fire but with [...]agot too; To an­swer which, let the Dr. but clear those male­factors from Schisme and Sedition, and we shall acknowledge the cruelty ours, and the innocency theirs; otherwise let them remem­ber our pretended persecution was onely execu­tion of justice, and theirs a most sacrilegious and irreligious tyranny. But I smell by the Dr. that he hath been in Iohn Foxes kennel.

The Reformations he mentions, introduced C. 7 Sect. [...]4 in the Popedom of this head junior of their Church, are many changes (as the Dr. tells us) and recessions from the doctrine and practises of Rome. That is now grown reason enough to think all that was done to be lawfully done; Besides (saith he) That of Images, the lawfulnesse of the marriage of the Clergy was asserted, (the Dr. likes that point of faith dearly) the English Li­turgy formed, the people got wine to their bread, &c. But that ill-favord, &c. dashes out the best. Then, then it was (the Dr. should have added) that those two sweet singers of Israel, Hopkins and Sternhold, (as Cleveland expresses it) [Page 222] murdered the Psalmes over and over, with Another to the same; then did the Later of these in a fit of divine fury no doubt, bid God, give his foes a rap.

Then, then it was that that second Solomon, Robert Wisedom, inspired questionless from Hea­ven, warbled out that melodious and exquisit hymn, which with a sweet twang closes up the book of Psalmes.

And the rest of that devout piece, able to ra­vish any Christian heart to hear it. These and such other rarities of Reformation were then added, as harmonious Epithalamiums to this under-age Bride-Church, to celebrate her espousals or marriage with her Infant-Head.

After this the Dr. treates of the Reformation made under Queen Elizabeth in his 15. Para­graph, C. 7. Sect. 15. consisting of five or six lines on either side a long Parenthesis; which Parenthesis tells us partly strange news, that Queens as well as Kings have according to our Laws Regal Pow­er; partly open fictions, that this plenitude of power is as well in Sacred as Civil affairs; and that they have this by the Constitution of our Monar­chy. Whereas he cannot but know there had been many a Monarch in England, ere their Schismatical Laws were made, which first al­lowed the King a plenitude of power in sacred mat­ters.

In the next place he touches the ordination of their new created Bishops, evidenced (as he saith) out of the records to have been performed [Page 223] according to the ancient Canons by the imposition of the hands of the Bishops. Yet this modest evi­dencing Record durst never shew its head for about fifty years, notwithstanding the outcries made by Catholicks against the pretended or­dinations of Protestant Bishops, and strong pre­sumptions to the contrary: till at length, when the memory of that present age was past, which might discountenance that pretence and argue it of impudence, out steps a new old Record assuring us that they were regularly ordained. And this is the firmest Basis the Protestant Mi­nistry or Bishops have, to witnesse that they have any more Authority to preach then an A­nabaptistical Zelot, whose profession is perhaps a Weaver; his Calling, his own Intrusion; his Pulpit a Tub, and his Diocesse a Conventicle. But suppose you had a material Mission from the hands of Catholick Bishops, and that Mr. Ma­son had vindicated you in this point; yet can either Mr. Mason or any else even pretend to manifest that those Catholick Bishops gave you a Mission, that is, sent and Authorised you to preach Protestant Doctrines, or could do it, in case they would, having no such power from the Church, from whom they have all their power. Unlesse you evidence this, both Mr. Mason and Dr. Hammond may as well say nothing. For since they gave you no such authority as you make use of, that is to preach against the for­merly received Faith; nor sent you any such er­rand as you now declare and preach, it follows that whatever you do to prejudice and extin­guish that doctrine (to propagate which they meant your Mission) is done onely upon your own head, without any authority but your own [Page 224] selfe-assumed licentiousnesse to talk and say what you list; not derived from the consecra­ted hands of your Catholick Ordainers, but from your own unhallowed schismatical hearts.

But Mr. Dr. is always afraid, where no fear is; an­swering C. 7. Sect. 17 at large here a supposed objection of ours against Q. Elizabeth for unchairing some Bishops and installing others. But (alas!) I am more courteous to the Queen than the Do­ctor imagines, and think no worse of her, but onely that in that fact she did after kind; for supposing her once the Head of Schisinaticks and Chief-Bishopesse of their Church, I see no rea­son but she should depose Bishops, Catholikely affected, and install heretical ones; and in a word, she and her Bishops vo [...]e and act what­ever they thought good, and I cannot tell what should hinder them, since the now re­jected Authority of Gods Church could not. All the superstructures of the Reformation then, which the Doctor so often and so largely in this Chapter hath shown to be done regular­ly, I grant him to have been done as regularly as his own heart could wish or mans wit ima­gine; for the Authority of the Church being schismatically renounced, and the infallible rule of Faith, which could onely oblige men to an unanimous beleefe, being broken and re­jected; these grounds▪ I say, being layed, I yeeld that the superstructure not onely of their heresie, but even of Lutheranism, Zuinglianism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Puritanism, Brownism, Socinianism, Presbyterianism, Anabaptism, with those of Quakers and Adamites, but even of Turcism and Atheism, were all very regular, or­derly, rational and connatural superstructures, [Page 225] upon the forelaid foundations. The ruine of all Faith must needs accompany the renoun­cing of Certainty.

Yet I had forgot to let the Reader see how the Doctor excuses the Queen for devesting some Bishops of their dignity; and his excuse is, because those Bishops refused to take the oath of Supremacy; concluding that therefore she dealt justly in devesting those Bishops, which thus refused to secure her Government, or to approve their fidelity to their lawfull Soveraign. By which one may see the Doctor knowes not the difference between the oath of Allegiance and the oath of Supremacy. The oath of Alle­giance or fidelity was instituted expresly for that purpose; what needed she then presse them to take the oath of Supremacy, to approv [...] their Fidelity or Allegiance; cannot one be a true subject to his King by acknowledging him his Liege Soveraign, unless he will take his oath he is Head of the Church? As if neither any of the former Kings of England, nor any of the Catholike Princes that now are or ever have been, had so much as one true subject, because none of them takes the Oath of Su­premacy.

What followes, is onely a narration how the Schism went on and the rent was made worse. C. 7. S. 2. At length he shuts up this Chapter, by pro­nouncing an absolute Negative of their guilti­ness of Schism, from this one evidence, that all was done by those to whom, and to whom onely the rightful power legally pertained, to wit, the King and Bishops of this Nation. So as the King must be Head of the Church, that's concluded, hoagh all the world say and swear the con­trary [Page 226] though himselfe have not brought one express word to prove it: Nay more, he hath EVIDENCE it is no Schism, because the King and the Bishops voted it; as if whatsoever the King and Bishops vote, let it be what schisma­tical doctrine it will, though Socianism and Turcism, it must not be schismatical; so blind is prejudice, that it can neither see without its own spectacles, nor beyond its own narrow limits. The Doctor discourses all this Chapter long, as if he made account all the world were comprised in one poor corner of it, England; like the home-bred fellow that thought the Sun set at the next town; if a King or Queen here with a few Bishops, partly out of feare, partly out of favour, some out of malice (and contradicted by others) decree any thing, it makes the case irrefragable in the Doctors judgment: Not considering (which yet any prudent man would) that the whole world, whom before they accounted onely Catholick, and in which had been hundreds of Kings Queens and Bishops, nay perhaps thousands for one of theirs, had ever condemned by their contrary beliefe these Votes and Acts to bee scismatical and heretical. Besides, this King before the breach acknowledging himselfe sub­ject to that Authority in Ecclesiastical matters, as all Catholick Kings now doe, and as all his Ancestor-Kings ever since Englands conversion had done, it must be, as I have told you often▪ most apparent evidence, and such as greater cannot be imagin'd, which may warrant him to exal [...] himselfe above the Popes Authority, so long setled in possession, and that in those very things in which before he was acknow­ledgedly [Page 227] under him; especially the contrary verdict of such an universality, as I have be­fore mention'd, with its weight not to be counterpois'd, preponderating, and mightily prejudicing any pretence of Evidence. Again, if the thing were evident, how happened it that no Christian King till the time of King Henry the eighth, and in his time none but he should discern this clear evidence, unless per­haps (though they say love is blind, yet) his desire to Anna Bullen did open his eyes in such miraculous manner, that he saw by the hea­venly light of her bright star-like eyes, that the Pope was Antichrist, his Authority unlaw­ful; and himselfe, who was then found under it in Ecclesiastical matters, to be indeed above it, in case the Popes spiritual power should cross his carnal pleasure.

To conclude my answer to this Chapter, I would ask two things of Mr. Doctor; one is, in case a King should have broke from the Church, and brought in Schism into his Coun­try, whether it could probably be perform'd in any other manner than the very method by which their Reformation was introduced? The other is whether the Reformation be yet perfectly compleat, or rather that Queen Eli­zabeth swept the Church indeed, but left the dust sluttishly behind the door; if it be not yet compleat, I would gladly know how far this Reformation and Receding from Rome may proceed; and what be the certain stints, and limits of this rowling Sea, which it may not pass? For I see no reason in the Doctors grounds, but if the secular powers think it convenient, they may reform still end▪ wayes [Page 228] as they please, nay even, if they list, deny Christ to be God; an acute Socinian will solve very plausibly all the objections out of Scrip­ture, and produce allegations, which I doubt not he will make far stronger, than the Doctor doth his against the Pope; nor will there want some obscure testimonies out of Antiquity, and express ones from the Arrian Hereticks to e­vince the Tenet; if this then were voted by a King, some of his Bishops and a Parliament, the Doctor must not disobey and hold Christs Divinity; since the thing was done by them to whom (as the Doctor sayes) rightfull power legally pertain'd. They having no infallibility then, may happen to vote such a thing; and the Doctor having no infallible certainty to the contrary, ought not recede from his lawful Superiours, so as upon these grounds all religi­on may be reformed into Atheism; and (the infallibility of the Church once denied) the temporal Power hath no reason to have his rightful authority stinted, but at pleasure to make Reformation upon Reformation from ge­neration to generation, per omnia saecula saecu­lorum.

SECT. 1.

MAster Hammond hath at length fi­nish't C. 8. Sect. 1. his greatest task, and done preaching of the first species of Schism, as it is an offence against the subordination, which Christ hath by himselfe and his Apostles setled in the Church; and is now arrived to the second sort, as it signifies an offence against the mutual unity, peace and chari­ty, which Christ left among his Disciples.

This Schism against Charity, for methods sake, (as he tells us) he divides into three species. Sect. 2. The first is a Schism in the Doctrine or Traditions, a departure from the unity of the Faith once delive­red [Page 230] to the Saints, from the institutions of Christ, of the Apostles and of the Universal Church of the first and purest times, whether in Government or practises, &c. Where first this methodical Dr. makes Faith and Charity all one; putting his Schism against Faith for the first species of his Schism against mutual Charity. Next, he ranks also the rejecting Christs Institution of Govern­ment under this second species of Schism against Charity, which most evidently was the first General Head of Schism hitherto treated of; that is, of the Offence against Subordination setled by Christ in the Church: For Christ could not settle such a subordination in the Church, but he must at the same time institute the Government of the Church; since there can be neither subordi­nation without Government, nor Government without subordination. So as now the Schism against Government is come to be one of the Schisms against mutual Charity; and, to mend the matter, comprehended under the same Head with Schism against Faith. Was ever such a confusion heard of? And yet, all this is done (saith the Doctor) for methods sake.

But to proceed, the second species of his Schism against mutual Charity, is an offence against external peace and Communion Ecclesiastical. Where I find as much blundering as formerly. For these words must either signifie an Offence against Superiors and Governors of the Church; and then it is again co-incident both with the first general Head of Schism, which dissolves the subordination of the Churches subjects; and Sect. 2. also with the first particular species of Schism against mutual Charity, which (according to the Doctors method) included a breach from the [Page 231] Government instituted by Christ. Or else, they must signifie an Offence against the mutually and equally-due correspondence and Charity, which one fellow-member ought to have to another; and then it falls to be the same with his third and last species, which he calls, The want of that Charity which is due from every Chri­stian to every Christian. So that, if the jum­bling all the Bells together in a confused dis­order may be called musical, then the Doctors division may be styled methodical.

After this, he subdivides this first species, (to C. 8. S. 3. wit, Schism against Faith) into A departure from those Rules appointed by Christ for the founding and upholding truth in the Church; and into The as­serting particular doctrins contrary to Christs and the Apostolical pure Churches establishment. But first he cleares himselfe of the former of these by an­swering our suggestion (as he calls it) that in casting out the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, they have cast off the Head of all Unity. To which he tells us the answer is obvious; First that the Bishop of Rome was never appointed by Christ to be the Head of all Christian Unity, or that Church to be the conservatory for ever of all Christian Truth, more than any other Bishop or Church of the Apostles C. 8. Sect. 4. ordaining or planting. Where I find almost as many absurdities hudled together as words. For first, what signifies the Bp. of Rome was not appointed by Christ? Christ was not on earth when St. Peters Successors in the See of Rome, sate there; and when he ordained St. Peter chief of the Apo­stles, Saint Peter was not yet Bishop of Rome. Next, if he meanes that St. Peter was not ap­pointed by our Saviour, as the Head of Christi­an Unity, St. Hierom's testimony, I suppose, [Page 232] will be as good as the Doctors word, who tels us, Inter duodecim, &c. Amongst the, twelve one Hierom. contra Io­vinian. was chosen, that A HEAD being constituted, the OCCASION OF SCHISM MIGHT BE TA­KEN AWAY. Where we see expresly Saint Peter, the Popes Predecessor, was advanced to be HEAD; and this to take away occasion of Schism, that is, to be HEAD OF CHRIS­TIAN UNITY. Thirdly, hence also follows that Christian Unity is conserved by him more than by any other Bishop, contrary to the Doctors as­sertion. Fourthly, he equivocates in the word Roman Church, and takes in it a sence which he knowes we never mean't: Our acception of it being of the Universal Church communicating with the Mother Church of Rome; his, of the private Diocess of Rome it selfe. Fifthly, it is groundless to affirm, even of this private Church of Rome it selfe, that she is not the con­servatory of Christian Truth more than any other; since the Doctor cannot but know the Fathers are of a contrary beleefe, holding that the two chief Apostles, dying there, bequeathed to that Church, as a sacred Legacy, a greater vigour of Christian Tradition. Again, Histories and Fathers witnessing so unanimously her firm per­sistance above the rest; objections often urged by our Authors to that purpose; the Doctor might at least have afforded us one testimony of the contrary, besides his own bare saying. Lastly, what is the Doctors intent in saying Christ did not appoint the Church of Rome conser­vatory (for ever) of all Christian truth? What meanes this canting Parenthesis (for ever) As if Christ might perhaps appoint her to conserve truth for a while, but meant after some time [Page 233] to discharge her of that office. But this Pa­renthesis the Doctor reserved for a starting-hole, that he might at pleasure cry out she had erred, when he had found out some odd testimony, which with the help of an id-est-clause might overthrow the Authority of the whole World.

His second Defence for relinquishing the means to preserve Unity of Faith, which we charge them with, is this; that The way provided by Christ and his Apostles for preserving the Unity of Faith, &c. is fully acknowledged by their Reformation. Which way (sayes the Doctor) is made up of two Acts of Apostolical Providence; First, their re­solving upon some few heads of efficacy to the plant­ing of Christian life through the world, and preach­ing and depositing them in every Church. Second­ly, their establishing an excellent subordination of Church-officers, &c. As for the first of these C. 7. Sect. 5 Acts (as he calls them) of Apostolical Providence; if these two Heads he speaks of, as thus depo­sited, be indeed sufficient to form a Christian life in order to the attainment of Eternal bliss, and that they came down certainly to us by this depository way at first in the Churches, and so derived successively age by age, Dr. Hammond C. 7. Sect. 12 is suddenly become a Proselyte and a plain Pa­pist: For, we neither say we have any point of Faith superfluous for the Community of the Faithful; nor that those we have, came to us by any other meanes than seruando depositum, by preserving uncorrupted those necessary doctrines thus deposited.

But I fear much, when the matter comes to scanning, Mr. Hammond, in this his doctrine, neither goes to Church nor stayes at home, but halts [Page 234] very lamely in the mid-way. He stayes not at home; for his Church of England is so far from holding the points deposited by the Apostles in Churches, a certain way to preserve Unity of Faith, that nothing is more abominable to her than the name of Tradition. This appeares by the sixth Article or Canon of Queen Elizabeth's female-headed General Council, where the Scripture is made the sole ground of Faith, and nothing affirmed as necessary to Salvation, but what is built upon it; whereas the Doctor here builds points necessary to salvation (for sure those few heads of special efficacy to the planting a Christian life, can be no lesse) upon their preach­ing and depositing them in the Churches; nay more, the Unity of Faith, that is, Faith it self, (for Faith, if not one, is none) upon this way of depositing. Yet for all this he will not goe to Church neither, though he stay not at home. For ask him, are those few Heads all that are necessary? he will tell you, n [...]; yet which be those necessary Heads, how many, and why no more were thus delivered (since this he sayes is A WAY TO PRESERVE U­NITY IN FAITH; and on the other side he sees what multiplicity is bred by the diverse C. 8. [...]. 5. interpretations of Scripture) ask him, I say, these questions, and no particular account can he give you; only he had a mind to say somthing in geneneral, lest he might be thought to have utterly contemned all Traditions.

Again, these Churches, in which were depo­sited those few Heads of such special eeffi­cacy to plant Christian life, were they infallible, that is, such as we may certainly trust to in their preserving that depositum? if they were▪ [Page 235] they might as well be infallible in other neces­sary points also, and so the Doctor hath slipt, by good hap, into our Rule of Faith, and (though hoodwink't) goes to Church again. But if they be not infallible, that is, connot certainly tell us that they delivered us the right deposi­tum, and the same they received, then the Dr­remaines as he is, and hath brought nothing to his purpose. For since Unity of Faith cannot be preserved without some efficacious meanes of bringing it down to us inerrably true, un­less this depositing was such as must upon ne­cessity continue for ever, ( which is that we call Infallibility, or Indefectibility of the Church) the providence of the Apostles had been very sleight, and nothing at all to the Doctors pur­pose; that is, it had been no efficacious way to preserve Unity of Faith.

He addes afterwards, And all this is asserted and acknowledged by every true son of the Church of England as zealously as is pretended by any Roma­nist. Here again the Doctor seemes to step for­wards towards the Church▪ and to draw a great troup of backward unwilling Protestants after him. For if they hold (as I conceive he meanes by these words) the doctrines deposi­ted in the Church, as zealously as the Romanists, they must hold them as of Faith; for so farre our well-grounded zeal carries us, and that the depositary is so trusty as it cannot deceive us. Now you see the Doctor is got as farre as the Church-door. But when he heares them within the Church talk that a company of men can be Infallible; he leaps you back at one jump as far as the Sceptick Schooles of the Heathen Academicks.

[Page 236]But how could Mr. Hammond imagine this pretence sufficient to acquit him from Scism in renouncing the way to preserue Unity of Faith, or to prove that he and his fellowes still fully ac­knowledged it. The way to preserve Unity of Faith, held by all the Christian world before their breach, was the beleefe of the Churches Infallibility; and we think mans wit cannot invent a better for that End. Either then, this must be the way to preserve Unity in Faith, or some other; if this, you manifestly broke and rejected it, as hath been shewn, and as the 19th Article of Queen Elizabeths new Creed profes­sedly declares; if some other, whatever it is, it must needs include a fallibility and uncertain­ty in the Church, of the doctrine she teaches. Wherefore, either evidence to us that a pro­fessed and beleeved fallibility can be a better way to preserve Unity in Faith, than a beleefe of In­fallibility; or else grant that renouncing the lat­ter you renounced the best and most efficacious way to conserve such an Unity.

The second way to preserve Unity in Faith here mentioned by the Doctor (as fully and zealously acknowledged by him & his fellows) is the establishment by our Saviour and his Apo­stles of an excellent subordination of all inferiour Officers of the Church to the Bishop in every City, of the Bishops in every province to their Metropoli­tans, of the Metropolitans in every region or [...] to Patriarchs or Primates; allowing also a­mongst them such a primacy of Order or Dignity a [...] might be proportionable to the [...]. &c▪ Thus the Doctor. In answer to which, w [...] will examine a while, whether this way, thu [...] laid out, be indeed the way to preserve Unity i [...] [Page 237] Faith! For, if notwithstanding this subordi­nation, no Priest is bound to beleeve his Bishop, nor Bishop his Metropolitan, nor Metropolitan his Patriarch, how can this conduce to the Unity of Faith? But peradventure he will say this subordination in obedience is a great help to keep out errours, and then, if this be so, we must take into consideration how this point re­lates to Unity of Government, as it is a means to conserve Truth, the breaking of which Unity is called Schism. So the question in that case is reduced to the examine how his subordination provides against Schism. Let us admit then that all the world were made up of Churches governed in this Order as the Doctor hath put them; I would ask, if in the time of the Arian Heresie, a Priest had dissented from his Bishop, an Arian, but yet consented with his Metropo­litan, had it been schism in so doing? The Doctor must answer, No; for the Metropolitan being of higher Authority than the Bishop, the adherence to him would more secure the Priest from schism, than the relinquishing the Bishop could endanger him. Next, if a Bishop dissent from an heretical Metropolitan, but consents with a Catholick Patriarch, is it yet Schism? Surely no, since the same reason clears him that cleared the Priest before. Again, if the Metropolitan dissent from his own Primate or Patriarch, but agree with all the rest, is it yet schism? Certainly no; for the collection of all the rest, being of greater Authority than any one in particular, can by consequence more excuse him, than the other can condemn him. Hitherto then we have found none of the Do­ctors Amulets against Shism. Let us proceed; [Page 238] If a Patriarch dissent from the first, from the Doctors [...], but yet concedes to all the rest, is it yet schism? The Doctor answers, no; For in regard he owed the other onely something more of a civil respect, as a younger C. 7. Sect. 17 brother does an Elder, without any inferiority to him in Command or Jurisdiction, it cannot be a Schism. Forwards still; Suppose some Nation or some Patriarch dissent from a General Council, is it yet Schism, still the Dr. answers, No; for in his third Chapter, which branch't Schism into all its Species, he put no such schism as that against a General Council. How then hath Mr. Hammond by this new way provided against Schism, if according to this Subordina­tion, all the Church may fall together by the eares, and all may find lawful excuses to secure them from▪ being Scismaticks; since the oeco­nomy of that distracted Family is so order'd, that neither any one in particular, nor any in common, have any tie to hold them to the rest, without which ty of consent in matters of faith, this imagin'd subordination can no way be a meanes to preserve Unity of Faith; and con­quently the Drs. Church▪government (with­out some stronger obligation to knit up all this Order in an Unity) is not an Act of Provi­dence, either worthy our Saviour or his Apo­stles.

But what is become of the King or Empe­rour all this while, is he no body now, who before was the Chief? It seemes the Apostles made no reckoning of him in all their Provi­dence. It is wonderful Mr. Hammond should so forget himself, and proceed so inconsonantly to his own grounds; that, whereas before the [Page 239] King was Chief Governour, Head of the Church, Supreme in Ecclesiastical matters, over and above both Metropolitans and Patriarchs, &c. Now in treating the Government of the Church, in­stituted to preserve the Unity of Faith, he thinks the Head of the Church, whom he had formerly exalted above all that is called HOLY, not worth the mentioning. Does he think the Unity of such a Head conduces nothing to the preservati­on of Unity in Faith, which yet he grants to a far more inferiour, Bishop? or accounts he it a small sin for a Patriarch to dissent from so Sa­cred a Head of his Church, and his lawful Su­periour, nay Supreme in Ecclestastical matters, and to whom the rightful power (as the Doctor told us) in those things legally pertaines? Yet Mr. Hammond had good reason to omit it. For though he may talk of, and advance that do­ctrine in common, so to escape the Supremacy of the Pope (for you must conceive that he had rather have even a Bramble▪ rule over their Church, than that all▪o're▪spreading Cedar, the Bishop of Rome) yet he declines it as hand­somely as he can, when he should apply that doctrine to particulars, as is seen in our present case. For indeed who would not laugh at him, if he had told us (as he must, had he introduced the King) that it was the heighth of Schism to dissent in a point of Faith from a Thing which neither the Catholikes, nor yet Protestants (as you here see) acknowledge; but a kind of a Lay-Elder, an Office, which (were it not three dayes older) might seem borrowed from their dearly beloved brethren the Presbyterians.

Yet the Doctor is grown kind; and allows [Page 240] that the Scripture grants to S. Peter some Primacy of Order, or Dignity. If so, Mr. Hammond, C. 8. S. 5. then, for any thing you know, it may be a Pri­macy of Iurisdiction; And it stands onely upon the certainty of your, and our interpretation of Scripture, whether it signifie such a Primacy or no. Neither indeed could it be any other, if any hold may be taken from your words. For S. Peter, as you grant, and as the words [...] Simon, the first of the Apostles, plainly evi­dence, had some kind of Primacy then given him; and if it were then given him, he then had it, that is, he had it in our Saviours life time; but you told us before that S. Iohn had the dignity of place (which is the same with Primacy of Order) before all others in Christs life C. 4. S. 14. time, even before S. Peter himself▪ The Pri­macy then which S. Peter had in Christs life time, must be some other Primacy; and what Primacy could this be, but the Primacy of Iu­risdiction? Again, if by this Primacy he allows S. Peter, he means such a precedency as hath any effect or efficacity in the Church according to the nature and degree of a Primacy; this is all the substance of the Popes Authority, and all that is held by us as of Faith; but if he means by Primacy there, a meerely inefficacious and dry Presidency and Precedency of Order; such as is with us the walking on the right hand, or sitting first at a Table, without any superiority more than a courteous deference of the rest; then the Doctor must imagine our Blessed Saviour had no better thing to do, when he made S. Peter the first, but to take order, for feare the good Apostles should fall to complement, who should sit, go, or speak, [Page 241] in the first place: and consequently this tenet (being an Act of our Saviours, register'd in Scripture) must bee a courteous point of Faith, obliging all the Apostles, under pain of damnation, to be civil, and make a leg to S. Peter.

In the next paragraph the Doctor is full of C. 8. S. 7. feares and jealousies, and makes a great doubt that the subjection of this Church to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome will never be likely to tend to the Unity of the whole. And why think you so, Mr. Doctor? doe you not find evidently that the Church (before Luther and K▪ Henry renounced the said Authority) enjoy'd most perfect peace and tranquillity, as those who are under that government doe most blessedly now? and on the contrary, that after that Au­thority was rejected, nothing has succeeded the rejecters, but perpetual turmoiles, schisms, divisions and subdivisions into Sects; and dai­ly mutations in Faith and Government, as far as the temporal sword did not hinder them. Is not this as evident as all History, and even our very eyes can witnesse a truth? Lastly, doe not the present distractions you now groan un­der awake you, to see that the source of all your misery springs from the leaking Cistern of Schism you have digg'd for your selves? Did your Ancestours find so little Unity under the Government of the Roman Catholike Church, or have you found such a constant Unity since you left it, that you can presume the re-admitting that Government is never likely to tend to Unity? Yet you cannot think otherwise, unlesse all other Churches of Christians paid that subjection too. Do you your obligation; why should their back­wardnes [Page 242] in their duties make you deny yours? Besides, whom doe you call Christians? all that cry Lord, Lord, that is, professe the name of Christ, but deny the onely certain Rule to come to the knowledge of his Law? such as were the Gnosticks, Carpocratians, Donatists, Socinians, and all the heresies that ever arose since the infancy of the Church; or doe you mean by the word Christians, onely those, qui faciunt voluntatem Patris, doe the will of our hea­venly Father, that is, all that hear the Church, or have a certain and common Rule to know what Christs Law is? if so, all these acknow­ledge subjection to the Head-Bishop of Rome, never denied by any but those, who, at the same time they denied it, cast themselves out of the Church, refusing to hear her.

You say the Eastern Churches had not acknow­ledg'd it ere your departure. Admit they had not: can their pattern warrant you (more than it can warrant the Arrians, Nestorians, Eu­tychians, &c.) unless you be certain they did well in it? They rejected it indeed, and for their reward were by all the Christian world (till you, falling into the same fault, began to call them Brothers) and by all your Ancestours justly held and called Schismaticks. Yet, when they were in their right mood, they admitted it as much as any Roman-Catholike, as appeares in the Acts of the Florentine Council, to which they subscribed; nay even when they were disgu­sted and refused Unity, they acknowledged the power of the Bishop of Rome; as appeares by a testimony of Gerson, cited by your friend Bishop Bramhall against himselfe ( in his just vindication of the Church of England, p. 101.) which wit­nesses [Page 243] that the Greeks departed from the then-Pope with these words, Wee acknowledge thy power, we cannot satisfie your covetousness, live by your selves.

His second doubt is, that the Bishop of Rome C. 8. Sect. 6 is not able to administer that vast Province. I wonder how he did of old; and why he may not do the same again as well as formerly. But the Dr. calls it a politick probleme whether hee can or no; and would have it judged by those who are by God entrusted with the Flock. Id est (saith he) by the Princes, the nursing Fathers in every Church. It is indeed a politick probleme, that is, a question concerning Government; but since it concernes Government Ecclesiastical, it falls not under the scanning of temporal Poli­ticians. The Christian Common-wealth would be brought to a pretty pass, if the Government of Gods Church, so long acknowledged as left by Christ, and continued in the Church 300. yeares (by their own confession) ere there were any Christian Princes, should anew be call'd into question by humane policy. But these two words of Scripture Nursing Fathers make it plain to the Doctor (satisfy'd with a­ny thing himself fancies) that the Government and Jurisdiction over the Church belongs to Kings; as if to nurse, cherish and foster, were to rule, order, govern and command; or, as if Ioseph, who was Foster-father to our Saviour, was as good as, or the same with God Almigh­ty, who was his true Father. And I wonder where this Doctor ever read, that our Saviour entrusted the Government of his Church and Ecclesiastical affaires to any but the Apostles, Ecclesiastical persons; or that any held Nero, [Page 244] the Heathen Emperour, to have right and title o be Head of the Church.

Again, if our Saviour left that authority with his Apostles, I would gladly know, by what new Orders from Christ, it came to be transfer'd from their Successors into the hands of secular Princes. But the Doctor has by his former words brought the matter at length to a finall decision. The question is, whether it be sit­ting the Pope should rule over the whole Church, which none denies but a few schisma­tical Princes; he comes to take up the contro­versie, and tels us those very Princes (for all Ca­tholike Princes have already determined the contrary) must decide the truth of the busi­nesse. As if an Umpire, being to arbitrate a quarrel about the Authority of the Vice-chan­cellour of Oxford, opposed by the Major, his Competitor, should take up the businesse by saying it was a politick probleme, belonging to the Government of the University, and so ought to bee decided by none but the Ma­jor.

SECT. 2.

HAving thus cleared the Protestants for re­nouncing the Rules of Faith; (which was part of his well-divided Schism against mutual Charity as far as it concernes Faith) he is come to treat next of the second part of that first species of mutual Charity, which concernes Faith, to wit, of the particular doctrines in Faith: in which he sayes he doubts not but to approve him­selfe to any that will judge of the Apostolical Do­ctrines and Traditions by the Scriptures and consent of the first 300. years, or the four General Councils, &c. which is a very plausible and pithy piece of shuffling, expressing a plain tergiversation from approving himselfe willing to do any thing, but to wave and shift the Question. For first, we must judge of Apostolical doctrines and Traditi­ons by Scripture. I ask, are those doctrines clearer exprest in Scripture than they are in the depositories of the Churches, by which he told us before they were brought down to us, or no? If they be clearer in Scripture, what needed we those depositives at all, and to what end does that Apostolical Providence serve? If [Page 246] not, how can we judge of them by Scripture, which speakes more obscurely of them? A­gain, since we must judge of Apostolical doctrines by Scripture, what rules does the Doctor give us to settle our judgement, when things are cleare in Scripture and when not? for we see many men, who govern themselves by fancy, think that evident, which another judges to have no apparence of truth. And, for my part, I even despair of bringing clearer proofes from Scripture, than that S. Paul converted Iewes, and S. Peter Gentiles; which yet you saw could give the nice Doctor no satisfa­ction.

Another tergiversation is his standing onely to the first 300. yeares; where the Authors being scarce, by reason of the Churches obscure state under persecution; and hardly any occasion to speak of the late risen controversies between us, he hopes no great matter can be concluded against him thence, where scarce any thing is found that concernes our quarrel. As if, being to fight a Duel with an Adversary, he would stand to the appointment of no place and time, but onely in a wildernesse and a dark night; where they might be sure never to meet, or being met, never see one another. No better is his standing to the four first Councils onely; which were all call'd upon other occasions, and so touch not any point of debate between us, except onely on the by, and therefore ob­scurely; the best testimonies out of which have been already objected by him, and solved by us. But why onely foure? since all Coun­cils are of equal Authority; there being no­thing found to authorize the first foure, but [Page 247] was found in the fifth, sixth, &c. So that this challenge of the Drs. is all one as if an Ari­an Heretick would be judged by no place in Scripture, whether Christ were God or no, but out of the Proverbs of Solomon; where no­thing is found concerning that point; dilating much upon the praises of Solomon, and what a most pure and uncorrupted piece of Scripture that Book is; but producing no Evidence in the world why the other Books of Scripture were not as pure and sacred as it.

But the Doctor escapes not so; he has en­gag'd himselfe by this (as he thought) secure grant, further than he imagines. His allowing of foure Councils to examine his Faith by, is an acknowledgement that he admits the Au­thority of Councils as sacred and binding. He must either then shew EVIDENCE that the 5th Council erred, or that the Church and her Pa­stors had declined from the faith of the fore­going Age, or else he is obliged to accept it, and so the rest, under the penalty of forfeiting the title of a good Christian: for no lesse blot will fall to his share, who rejects an Authority held sacred by himselfe, without most clear Evidence of a just exception. As he who ac­knowledges the Authority of Parliament, by admitting the Acts of some as valid Lawes, is bound, by the very acknowledgment of some, to accept all the rest, unless an open Evidence convince their Votes not to have been free, or that there was some other known defect in the managing of them Onely in this latter a far lesse Evidence will serve the turn, the Autho­rity of Parliament being but humane, whereas the other was held and acknowledged to bee [Page 248] sacred. But indeed, the truth is, hee accepts not even of those four, because he thinks Coun­cils to be of Authority; but because he thinks there is no doctrine in these against his Fancy or Faith; or if any, he hopes he can make a shift to shuffle it off: In the mean time gaining a very great patronage and countenance to his cause, in pleading it relies on such highly au­thoriz'd supports.

No candider than the former is his evasion C. 8. S. 7. of being judged by the purest Ages; which in reality signifies onely such times wherein no­thing was treated against those heresies which afterwards cling'd together to compound Pro­testantism. This is manifest by his admitting 300. yeares next after Christ, no more; by which he excludes the fourth and fifth Ages, yet at pleasure admits the fourth General Council held about the middle of the fifth Age. So that, the whole Church must be imagin'd to be first pure, then impure, afterwards pure again, according as the supposition of it suits best for the Doctors purpose. If none of their parti­cular heresies were rife, and therefore not con­demned in the first obsure 300. years, presently the Dr. cries up those Ages for pure; But the Church in the next Age, having now got rid of persecution, became pester'd with home-bred factions and heresies; which made the Fathers of the Church take pen in hand, vigorously confuting them and some of the Doctors tenets among the rest. Hereupon the Doctor pre­sently decries that Age as impure▪ popish, cor­rupted. But then in the middle of the fifth age was call'd a Council, which chanced to treat nothing professedly of the errours afterwards [Page 249] embraced by the Protestants; nay more, had a certain passage in it (which I have before cleared) serving them to blunder in against the Pope; Immediately that Council was sacred, and that age (or at least that year) was pure again. For it cannot be imagin'd the doctrine of that Council was pure, but the beleefe of the Faithful in that Age taught by those Pa­stors which there resided must be pure also. Far more consonant then to their grounds is the doctrine of the Puritans, denying promiscuous­ly all Antiquity; than to pick and cull out at pleasure what serves their turn (as doe the Protestants) and to like and reject, allow and disallow what makes for or against them, with­out giving▪ any evident reason, why they put such a difference.

In vain therefore does the Doctor (like a very Saint) pretend in behalfe of their Church an unaffected ignorance though they should mistake, being conscious to himselfe what pitiful shifts he makes use of in stead of grounds. In vain does he hope that this ruliness (as he calls it) and obedience of theirs will render them ap­provable to God; unless they can render God an approved reason, why they will at pleasure hold his sacred Spouse, the Church, holy in one Age and adulterate in another; and shape and fashion Christs seamless coat, according to the mode of their ever-changing fancy. Last­ly, most vainly doe they hope this ruliness in holding to the first 300. yeares will lead them into all truth, unless they could shew that all the points of Truth between them and us were professedly treated and decided in those times, and the de­cision on their side.

He ends in a preaching manner with extol­ling C. 8. Sect. 8. the humble and docible temper of his Church. Truly, Mr. Doctor, it is a wonderful commen­dation to your Church that she is yet to bee taught: Pray, when will she be at age to leave going to School? when will she be out of her prentice-like tutorage, and set up for her selfe to professe truth, as a Church should do? I thought a Church should have been Columna & firmamen­tum veritatis; the Pillar and firm foundation of Truth; but yours is like the hinge of a door, or a weather-cock, docibly turning with every wind of doctrine. How doe you think the Pu­ritans or any other Sect should in reason yeeld any Authority to your Church, since she pro­fesses her selfe yet learning her Faith; that is, as yet knowes it not? If it be such a commen­dation in your Church to be docible, I suppose it is so in others▪ and consequently in the whole Church; and then, I p [...]ay, who must teach her, or what greater Professor is there on Earth of the knowledge of Christs Faith, to whom the Universal Church may submit her selfe as doci [...]le? Perhaps you will say that one particular Church must sisterly and charita­bly assist and teach another; that is, though each be ignorant it selfe, yet (like the blind leading the blind) they must all be suppo­sed mutual Mistre [...]ses, and consequently all learned.

But let us examine a little further this do­cible and humble temper of your youngling Church. Is it d [...]ciblenesse or humility think you, to forsake a Mistress, who had all the qualities which could give [...]er Authority, and fall to teach your selves new reformed doctrines without [Page 251] any Authority at all? Such is the humble d [...] ­ciblenesse of your Church. Is it docibleness to cast off the Authority of 14. General Councils, and the consent of Christendome for twelve hundred yeares, and rely upon your own judgments to interpret the rest as you list? This is the so much▪brag▪d on docibleness and humble temper of your Church.

Parallel to the former, or rather far ou [...] ­vying them (though of a contrary strain) is that most heroick Act of your docible humility to be willing to hold things concerning your e­ternal salvation upon the Authority of the C. 8. S. 7. four General Councils, or the Doctors and Church of the first 300. yeares; which Drs. and Councils notwithstanding it is an Article See the 21 Art. of the Church of England. of your Faith that they are fallible: And as for the Church of those times, that it was fal­lible your selfe grants; for you confesse that the same Church erred in the fourth Age. Now, to hold Articles or points of Faith upon that Authority, which it is an Article of Faith may deceive me, is such a magnanimous piece of docible humility, as I dare be bold to say, in the Doctors behalfe, neither the Apostles nor any Saint in the succeeding Church durst ever own. Neither can the present Catholikes, whom some (who neither understand their own, nor Catholike grounds) laugh at, as blindly humble and obedient to the Church, lay claim to such an incomparable degree of humility, proper and peculiar to the Protestants onely. For we pretend not Faith certain, but upon a deemed INFALLIBILITY in the Au­thority assuring it; so as, though they may be supposed blameable by you for failing in their [Page 252] grounds, that is, in believing the Church in­fallible; yet they cannot be condemned for proceeding inconsequently upon those ground [...]; for an infallible Authority deserves a firm assent. But to stand to the acceptation of matters of Faith, which you pretend most certain, upon an Authority confessed by your selves uncer­tain, is such a condiscension of humility, such a prostrating your proper knowledge, as is not onely a blindly-cap [...]ivating your Judgment, but even an utter renouncing all judgment, prudence and common sence; not a submitting the reason by a voluntary winking at obje­ctions, but a quite extinguishing and perfect putting out of the very Eye of reason it selfe; and is all one as if a man should say, For any thing I know, such a one may lye in what he tells mee; yet neverthelesse I will strongly perswade my selfe that all hee sayes is most certainely true.

Yet this humility the Doctor calls here a C. 8. Sect. 8 special mark of the Church of Englands Reforma­tion. And surely you have reformed well; since you have not only reform'd the Unity you before enjoy'd, into distractions; the Faith you formerly profest into new-fangled misbe­leefes: but your former reason and judgment into present folly and fancy. What is said of your accepting the four Councils, &c. may also bee apply'd to your private interpretitions of Scripture, which found your Faith; which Faith you will have to be certain and firm, though the persons Interpretation it is built on, be fallible and obnoxious to errour. The pious words in your own behalfe with which you close up your Chapter, spoken in an Elegi­ack [Page 253] tone, are very moanfully moving words out of a pulpit; rhetorical enough for women, not rational enough to satisfie any prudent man. You professe you would preserve the U­nity of the Apostolical Faith and primitive pra­ctises, as entire as Christs body or garments. Good Mr. Hammond, leave mocking your Rea­ders; and tell us why the Primitive times must needs just end then, when the Church began to flourish, and the Fathers to write against your doctrine. And as for Christs body or garments, I see no such great respect in you or your Churches doctrine allow'd towards holy Reliques, that I should be willing to trust those sacred pledges to your unhallowed hands; from whose rude usage his mystical Body, his Church, Faith (its Rule) Sacra­ments, Government, nor any thing, though never so sacred, left by our Saviour, hath found any security.

SECT. 3.

HIs 9th Ch. undertakes to clear his Church from the 2d. sort of his Schism against mutual [...]arity, to wit, from that Schism which is a­gainst [Page 254] extern Peace, or Communion Ecclesiasti­cal.

And first, he alledges for his plea, that they have retain'd the right form of Government, C. 9. Sect. 5 &c. So that now, Schism against Subordination or Government (for they are all one) which was the first general Head of Schism, and also comprehended under the first species of the second Head, as appeares C. 8. S. 2. is by the Doctors accurate method come to be under the second species also of the same second General Head. Which is all one, as if divi­ding vivens into Sensitive and Insensitive, and then subdividing the Genus of Sensitive into the two Species of Rational and Irrational, or Man and Beast; he should first treat of Insen­sitive, the first Genus, and (that done) fall in hand with Sensitive, the second; and then, under each Species of that, returne to treat professedly of Insensitive again; that is, to speak of Trees, Shrubs, and Herbs, when he should speak of men and creatures endued with sence. Surely Doctor Hammond is more methodical in his Sermons; otherwise, the World must needs look upon him as another S. Iohn Ba­ptist, because hee preaches in a Wilder­ness.

But let us follow him through all his Ma­zes, distinguish't by no orderly path, but what his own inconstant and desultorious track makes. First then he tells us that they retai [...] the Form of Government, in and under which the Apostles [...]ounded Ecclesiastical Assemblies or Com­munion, viz. that of the Bishop and his inferio [...] Officers in every Church. As if the Arian Here­ticks, who denied Christ to be God, and al­most [Page 255] all heresies that ever broke from Gods Church, did not retain afterwards the Au­thority of their own Bishops. But what a­vailed it either them or you, but to the greater danger of damnation; if you adhered to those Bishops, who had rejected the Authority of their former Superiours, and taught you do­ctrines contrary to the Order of Gods Church; without whose order, much lesse against it, they had no Authority to teach at all?

Again, you tell us of one piece of your Government (that of Bishops) constituted indeed by the Apostles; but you tell us not of the main hinge of your Churches Government, which is, of the King being its Head and Su­preme in Ecclesiastical matters. This is the sum and top of your Churches Government, put us not off with an odd end of it. This is that, for substituting which, in stead of the Ecclesiastical Head you rejected, wee charge you of Schism and breach of Communion Eccle­siastical: for in so doing you cut Gods Church into as many single headed, and consequently diverse-bodied and disparate Congregations, as there are Kingdoms in Christendome. Shew us that this your Novelty in Government was practised by the Apostles in their Assemblies, or in­stituted by them or their Blessed Master, and then you will say something to the point. Re­member your purest times of the first 300. yeares; shew us that all that time the Church was or­dered by the Emperours Presidency, or that this Government was instituted by Christ and his Apostles: If you cannot, then tell us, how comes it to be held now as a chief point of Faith? You may not in reason think to uphold your [Page 256] self your by testimonies out of the following ages, unles you wil disavow your own grounds; for those ages were (as you say) all impure. Lay your hand then on your heart, Mr. Hammond, and tell us in good sadness, if you be not gra­vell'd in your own doctrine, while you maintain this new Lay▪Ecclesiastical Govern­ment.

His second plea is, that, as they maintain the Order of Bishops, so they submit to the exercise of C. 9. S. 1. it, acknowledging the Authority of those Governors. In answer to which, no new thing is to be said, this being the very same with the former; only First changed into Secondly. For, the obeying, submitting to, and acknowledging the due Authority of Governours, is the very formal maintaining and accepting the Government, which was his first branch. So as this is an­other orderly production of the Drs. methodi­cal Head, which vents it selfe in first, secondly, thirdly, &c. upon all occasions, though both his first, second, and third bee the selfe-same formal thing.

His third plea is, that they observe the cir­cumstances Ibid. necessary to the assembling them­selves for publick worship. First, that of place ( Churches.) Secondly, that of time (the Lords day, primitive Festivals.) As if all Schis­maticks in the World doe not meet at some set times, and in some appointed and set pla­ces. Thirdly, Formes of prayer and praises (al­most all out of our Mass and Breviary.) Cele­bration of Sacraments (onely five of them being quite abolish't, and three quarters of the sixth.) Sacramentals, Copes and Surplisses, which you might by the same principles, call rags of Rome. [Page 579] Preaching (against Christ and his Church; such doctrine as none ever sent you or your first Fore-fathers to preach.) Cathe­chising (infecting and imbuing tender and ea­sie minds with your tainted doctrine. Fourthly, that of Ceremonies, such as the practice of the Primitive Church hath sent down recommended to us. Pray, by whom did she send them down and recommend them to you? Examine wel, and you shall find that the same authority re­commended to you many more, as from her, though you only accepted of what you thought convenient. Lastly, that of discipline to binde all to these performances. Doubtlesse all Sects in the world impose some obligation upon their subjects to keep them together, else they could not bee a Sect. Yet that your tie, either to that, or any thing else concerning Govern­ment, is as slack as may be, is manifest out of the slender provision made against Schism ac­cording to the Protestant grounds, See Part 3. Sect. 1. as I have shewn in my answer to the fore-going Chapter. Neither are you be­holding to your doctrine for any discipline sufficient to hold you together in Unity, (a professed fallibility is too weak for that) but to the secular Power; the threat of whose sword held you in awe for a while; but as soon as that Power was dissolv'd, your slack-sinew'd Church, which no tie either in Reason or Conscience held together, bewrayed its composition, and like the statue seen by Nabu­chadonosor, fell all to pieces.

It were not amiss ere I leave these three pleas, already mentioned, to take a second survey of them, that the Reader may visibly [Page 258] perceive how less than nothing this Doctor hath said, either to his, or indeed any purpose. To make this discovery sincere, we must mark his intent and scope in this Chapter, which is to free or clear their Church from the breach of Commmunion Ecclesiastical, which he makes to consist in such and such things. Now a man that goes about to clear another of an imputed fault, should (as I conceive) propose the ob­jected fault with the presumptions of the de­fendants guiltiness: and then diluere objecta, wipe off the stain of the accusations, and clear his innocencie. What does the Dr? he takes no notice of what is objected; but in stead of that, onely reckons up some few in­different things which their Church hath not rejected (and sure it were a hard case if they had rejected all which their Forefathers taught them) and then thinks the deed done. In particular, he tells us first that they retain the Government of Bishops; but why they have innovated a new Church-government, making the King Head in Ecclesiastical matters; or why they obey those Bishops, who can derive their mission of doctrine from no former Church or Authority; which only are the things objected to them, as schism; of these two points hee sayes nothing That they now obey their Bi­shops he tells us, but why they obey'd not him, or why they cast out his Authority, whom they held before to bee the Chief-Bishop, that's a matter not worth clearing. The Pope's Anti­christ, and ther's an end.

Then he clears his side from Schism, because they assemble in Churches: but he never con­siders that wee charge them with plain Sacri­ledge [Page 259] for meeting there, and deatining those places (anciently ours, and built by us) out of the true owners hands, and applying them to prophane uses: All that with him, is very laudable, and needs no clearing either from injustice, or sacriledge. He clears their Church of Schism, because they observe yet some Festi­vals (and the like may bee said of Sacramentals and Ceremonies) but considers not that the schism consists in this, that they, at their own voluntary pleasure, refusing some, and admit­ting others, denied consequently obedience to that Authority which recommended both unto them; and which disobedience their own grounds condemnes, as shall presently bee shewed.

He cleares his Church of Schism, by alledg­ing they observe some form of Prayer: but never takes notice that the crime wee object to them is this, that they ruin'd Religious houses to build dwelling Halls; so they man­gled our Holy and ancient Service-books to patch up their reformed piece of the book of Common-prayer; leaving out all the most sacred parts of it, to wit, Canon Missae, and what ever concerned the Heaven-propitiating Sacri­fice, that highest and soul-elevating Act of Religion; and onely taking out of it those sleighter things which might satisfie the lower­siz'd devotion of their reformed spirits, and was enough to serve them to cry, Lord, Lord.

He brings, as a proofe of their innocencie from schism, that they have celebration of Sa­craments, Preaching and Catechizing, &c. But thinks it not worth clearing, that of seven [Page 270] Sacraments they have retain'd onely the sub­stance of one, and the shadow of another. Nor ever considers whether their doctrine be true or false. All is one for that with the Doctor; if they doe but preach, pray, and catechise, let it be what it will, it is a certain note that they are no schismaticks.

Lastly, hee puts as an argument to cleare them from schism, that they have some Disci­pline to bind to these performances, &c. (that is, they use some little wit or meanes to maintain their schism, and hold their tribe together▪) but he waves that for which onely we accuse them of Schism; to wit, that they utterly re­nounced all the discipline, and even all ground of it, in that Church, of which theirs was once a member, and fancied to themselves a new one, without any ground of Authority, and with direct opposition and contempt of the former discipline.

Nor hath he onely, in this present endea­vour to clear his Church of Schism, omitted the very mentioning those matters which were to be cleared, but even the things he alledges, as whose retaining, hee makes account frees their▪ Church from schism▪ are such pitifull ordinary businesses, so indifferent to all or most schismaticks and hereticks, that they can no way particularize them to be none, or exempt them from the common crue of their fellowes. For what schism ever arose, but had some kind of government or discipline, had their meetings in some set places, at some set times, pray'd in their own new way, preach't, taught and cate­chiz'd their own doctrine. So as the Doctor might with [...]ar better Logick have concluded [Page 271] the Protestants no schismaticks, because they have all noses on their faces; this being com­mon to Catholikes as well as Schismaticks; and so might seem partly to excuse them: whereas the other, of admitting such points and no more (which are the Doctors notes of his Church) are disclaimed by all Catholikes, and common to almost all Schismaticks. Nay some schismaticks and hereticks have retai­ned much more of what their Ancestors taught them, as Lutherans; some almost all points, as the Greeks and the old Arians; the latter of which (excepting their one heresie a­gainst Christs divinity) had twenty times more markes of a Church in all other things, than the Drs could ever pretend to.

Fourthly, hee assures us, that the Popes C. 9. S. 2. Authority is an usurpation, and the use of more ceremonies and Festivals an imposition of the Ro­manists. How so Mr. Doctor? if the Supre­macy of the Bishop of Rome was brought in 900. yeares agoe, when Pope Gregory sent to convert our Forefathers to Christs faith, as your selfe and your followers grant, then how is it an usurpation of the present Romanists? Were wee, who now live, alive 900. yeares agoe? or are they who lived 900. years ago, alive now? But in regard you onely say it, and bring no proof, I shall not trouble my self in vouchsasing you an answer. As for the im­position of more ceremonies, which you say the present Romanists used towards you, with­out any authority from the Primitive Church, it is so silly, so contrary both to our grounds and your own also, that you make your selfe ridiculous to any man that, understands either [Page 262] one or the other. For since the institution of Ceremonies is one of the [...], or things indifferent, left to the ordering of Gods Church, as both the 20th Article of the new English Creed expressely determines, and all mode­rate Protestants hold, I wonder why our Church should not, when she saw convenient▪ ordain new Ceremonies (and the like may bee said of new Festivals, which are things indif­erent also) and recommend the observation and practice of them to you, who were then members of that Church, her subjects and chil­dren. Most lawfully then did our Church, (even in your own grounds) in imposing new Ceremonies on you▪ her then-subjects; and, if so, as unlawfully did you in spurning against her Ordinances. Neither consequently, can those few you retain upon your own head (and not her Authority) excuse you from Schism.

Equally absurd is your zealous profession of conforming your selves in ceremonies to the Primitive times; for if the Church hath Au­thority upon emergent conveniences and diffi­culties to institute new Ceremonies and alter old ones; then, you must either grant our Church in the fifteenth age to have been no Church (which you dare not affirm for fear of spoiling your own mission) or else grant that you were more bound to hold the Ceremonies recommended by her, than those which descen­ded from the Primitive times; Since our Church could better see what was expedient for her present circumstances, than the Primitive could foresee so long before hand, what was likely to be convenient for future ages.

SECT. 4.

IN the fifth place the Doctor professes, like a good charitable man as hee is; that they ex­clude no Christian from their Communion, that will either filially or fraternally embrace it with them. No truly, to give your Religion its due, it is a wonderful civil and courteous profession, and admits all the old condemned Heresies into Communion, provided they but professe Christ; whatever points else they deny, it matters not. Nay it is sufficient, if they call themselves Chri­stians (though all the world else calls them Hereticks) yet your kind hearted Church can­not but friendly entertain them. You keep open house for all commers. The doctrine of Oportet haereses esse, There must bee heresies, is changed by your boon behaviour into It is im­possible there should be heresies. For whereas the world heretofore understood those to be Here­ticks, who held the letter of the Scripture, and some points of Christianity, but deny'd others, which were the tenets of the Universal Church at that time; you have now quite chang'd the former notion; and think none to bee excluded [Page 274] from Communion, that is, none to be Hereticks that bear the name of a Christian; so as though they deny all points of Christs doctrine, yet professe Christs name, and the outward letter of the Scripture, let them come, and welcome. A­nabaptists, Brownists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Carpocratians, perhaps Arians; nay even Simon Magus himselfe; all these sew'd together only with the aiery sound of the word, Christian, will serve for broken-ware pieces to patch up Doctor Hammonds motley Church. For since they hold to his grounds, that is, to professe Christs name, and the letter of the Scripture, he cannot in any reason admit some, and refuse the rest.

Again, the Doctor is willing to admit any that will filially or fraternally embrace commu­nion with them, that is, all that will be either under them, or at least not above them; but is loath to admit communion with any that will paternally communicate with them, that is, be over and govern them: No, take heed of that; as much courtesie as you please, but not a dram of humility, obedience, nor subjection to Superi­ours: These peace-preserving virtues would quite break the neck of Schism and Faction. If there bee any such over-powering Authority, though never so long setled in possession over the Countrey, and acknowledged and belee­ved by all Christians, in never so many ages, to bee of divine institution, yet presently the spirit of Schism, in the first place, endeavours to break asunder the bonds of this paternal communi­on; to pluck it down to the ground, and cast it out of the Island.

You are willing (you say) to admit all to [Page 275] your Assemblies that acknowledge the foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles. You love mightily to talk plausible words in the aire, and in gene­ral, as if you made account your Readers should bee all fooles, to search no further than the empty sound of your universal sayings, not ap­plying them to the thing in question. Good Mr. Doctor, tell me what it is to acknowledge the foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles? Is it to acknowledge Scripture? All heresies in the world fly onely to it, and make it their armour­house to oppugn Christ and his Church. Arians and Socinians most of all, and yet they can deny Christs Godhead: So as by this means indeed, you will have store of communicants. Is it the true sence of the Scripture? then truth being one, and falshood manifold, if their in­terpretation be different from yours, both can­not bee true, and consequently both acknow­ledge not the foundation left by Christ: for, falsifying his word, cannot be that foundation. Again, if this bee the foundation left by Christ; you must have some certain and known Rule to come by the true sence of the Scriptures; else you cannot be certainly assured who acknow­ledge this foundation, and so admit rashly to your Communion you know not whom. Is it perhaps the true sence of Scripture, but re­strain'd to fundamentals? still the same diffi­culty remaines, unlesse you have some certain Rule to distinguish and sort out the Essentials from points of less importance; to talk much of fundamentals, and never tell us which are they, is but a shuffling trick of a mountebank, and very unbecomming a grave Divine. Or is this Foundation perhaps the solid sence of [Page 266] Christs law written and planted in the tables of mens hearts by the Apostles, and thence by a well­link't chain of Universal Tradition derived to our times? If so, you must admit onely Catholikes, and exclude all the rest; since onely they hold this foundation. Or rather indeed, since you deny this way of bringing down Faith to bee sufficient, which Catholikes hold as a certain and infallible Rule, it followes, that if you will goe conseqently to your own grounds, you must not admit them neither, since this is not the by-you acknowledged foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles. It remaines then that you are willing to admit all those that shall say they have the Foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles; and then you cannot doubt but to have the brotherly fellowship of all hereticks and schismaticks in the world, that have been, are, or shall bee; since all pretend strongly in general termes to acknowledge that Founda­tion.

Nor is hee lesse devoutly charitable in the C. 9. S. 6. following words, that they earnestly desire to bee admitted to the like freedome of external Communi­on with all the members of all other Christian Chur­ches, as oft as occasion makes us capable of that blessing of the one heart and the one lip. This it is to bee so inured to a drowsy▪ sounding vein of preaching Quodlibets, till a man hath humm'd and drumm'd away all reason out of his head. Speak sence, man; and let your pretended Cha­rity come clad in Truth, or else I must justly suspect it to bee nothing but Pharisaical hypo­crisie. I hate contradictions, though told me in never so pious a tone. Was it ever heard that any Catholike deny'd you Communion, [Page 267] if you were capable of that blessing of one heart (the same interiour beleefe) and one lip (the same exteriour profession.) To what purpose then are those seemingly pious words pro­duc'd. Leave off paying us with this hollow language, empty of sence; render your selves capable of that blessing in your actions; re­nounce and repent your disobedience to your so-long-acknowledg'd Superiours: Repeal your schismatical ordinances against Christs Church: Re-acknowledge a certainty in Faith, which is now brought, by your professed uncertainty, to the very brink of Atheism; Return to the never-erring Rule of Faith, the voice of the Church, which held you for eight or nine hundred yeares in the firm and undivi­ded Unity of the same beleef. Doe, I say, this efficaciously, and then you shall be freely, cordially, and with open armes received into Communion by them; who would willingly (though they lovingly reprehend you, to make you reflect on your errours) not onely spend empty words, but even lay down their lives to procure your Salvation.

Sixthly, the Doctor charges us, that the C. 9. S. 4. only hindrances which obstruct external Communion, are wholly imputable to us: which hee proves first: because the Pope excommunicated all those Catholikes that went to the Protestant Assemblies in the tenth year of Queen Elizabeth. And was it not well done think you? This has ever been the constant practice of Gods Church, to en­joyn the Faithful to abstain from the Commu­nion of those, who maintained a different, that is, an heretical doctrine. The simpler sort of Catholikes were gull'd by you to beleeve you [Page 278] had onely turn'd into English what was in Latine before, and therefore out of an unwari­ness, went to your Churches, which lately had been theirs; and not out of love to your new reformed doctrine: Till at length, the Father of the Church thought fit to disabusethem from the errour into which your false perswasions had led them; and forbid them the same room, who were not of the same company. And I wonder how it can stand with reason or sence, that, holding you hereticks, we should let the poore people goe to your Assemblies, to bee taught false doctrine; Nay even Nature it selfe seems to interdict such an unnatural commerce; that Catholikes, who held the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy of Divine Institution; Mass, and the rest of our doctrines, from which you receded, sacred, should goe to your Congre­gations, to hear the first rail'd against, as Anti­christian; the second, as Idolatrous and a blas­phemous fiction; the rest, as erroneous and per­nicious deceits. Blame not then, Mr. Hammond, Nature, Reason, and the Pope, for hindering this confusion, which you call external Commu­nion; but rather blame your selves for introdu­cing new doctrines, whence result such incom­possible and inconsistent practices.

Yet the Doctor tells us, that from this pro­hibition, C. 9. S. 5. proceeding from the Popes Excom­munication, it is visibly consequent, that they were cast out, and cannot be said to separate. Sure it must bee a temper of shame above brazen, to tell us this now in the tenth year of Queen Elizabeth; whereas himself hath laid out knot by knot how the Unity of the Church, in which they were formerly, was unloosed, or [Page 279] rather violently broken, in the time of King Henry the eigthth, King Edwards Protectour, and all the first ten yeares of this Queen. To which, though enough, and more then enough has been said, yet I will once more presse it home to the Dr. and then leave him to his wordish shifts, and the Reader to be his Judge. You and your King also were once members of the Roman Catholike Church, and subject to the Authority of the Pope; This Authority you confess ( C. 7. S. 5.) you cast out of this Island; But a rejection of an Authority, is a recession from that Authority; therefore you are guilty of a recession from the formerly-acknowledg'd Au­thority. So far for Government. Now for Doctrines and Practices. You once beleeved and practised as the Roman Catholike Church, to wit, when you were in her: That you re­formed you confess; and C. 7. S. 14. call your reformations, recessions from the doctrines and practises of Rome. A recession therefore was made by you, both from the former Government, as also the former doctrines and practises: But a recession is a voluntary departure, as plain sence evidences; therefore you made a voluntary de­parture from the formerly-acknowledg'd go­vernment, doctrines and practises of Rome. Now then, to tell us so long after; and after so large a narrative confession of your own to the con­trary, that you departed not, but were cast out, as if nothing had been done by you till the tenth year of Queen Elizabeth, is such a piece of forgetfulness, as could onely be peculiar to Dr. Hammond.

But I perceive the Doctor thinks there is no Schism, till the Pope have actually excommu­nicated: [Page 270] as if there might not bee a criminal departure from the former Faith, its Rule, Sa­craments, and the Churches Government, be­fore the Church comes with her spiritual rod of Excommunication to whip the Offender. From all these, I have already manifested, that you had divided, and by so doing, made your selves uncapable of Communion with the for­mer Faithful. Upon this, it was necessary to separate the Faithful from you in divine offices and therefore both just and fitting to excommu­nicate you; as well to punish you (who were long before schismaticks) for your crime, as to warn the sounder flock to abstain from your contagious communion. Neither can you blame us for excommunicating you, whom your own grounds, here delivered, clear in that point from any imputation of Rigour: Your selfe confessing that you rejected Roman Catholike [...] from your assemblies, and censur'd them upon thei [...] S. 5. avowed contumacy against the orders of your Church▪ Let us know then, why our Church might not doe the same, and with much more reason to you, who were once members of her, and whose recession from her orders, and contumaciou [...] persisting still, your selfe will witness; shew us, I say, why she had not as great Authority [...]ver those, who were once hers, as your [...] claimes over those, who were never yours; o [...] if you cannot, then grant, you were justl [...] excommunicated by her once, and remain a [...] justly excommunicated still, until you disavo [...] that contumacy, which obstructs your Com­munion.

His second Reason why wee hindred the external Communion (as he calls that confusion▪ [Page 271] is our imposing such conditions on our Communion, that they cannot subscribe without sinning or seeming to sin against conscience. And what sin, or seem­ing to sin, is this, think you? the beleefe of Doctrines, or Approbations of Practises, which they neither beleeve nor approve of. The question is not, Mr. Doctor, whether you beleeve or approve of them, or no, but whether it were your own sinful pride of understanding which made you and your first reformers disbelieve all their teachers, and think themselves understood more of Gods mind, than all the world before them; and yet, when they had done, acknow­ledg'd themselves but fallible in their contrary beleefe; that is, uncertain whether they or their teachers were in the right; and is not this a wise ground for any schollar to disbe­lieve his Master, or any child to disobey his father and mother. If it were pride, which made you think otherwise, (as truly no man knowing the grounds you build your re­formation upon, and how the greatest and most learned authority this world could shew, opposed you can in reason judge any other) then it is not innocency in you, nor a sufficient excuse for your not-Communion, that you doe not believe these doctrines; but it is your sin; and the root of all your misery and schism, that you correct not that vice, and so leave off that erroneous judgement, which misleades you from the truth; usurping the office of your spi­ritual guide the holy Catholick Church. Free C. 9. S. 7. the soul then first of that vice, and then you'l stand in no need to offer violence to your minds, nor be afraid to make an unsound confession; the feare of which you pretend for your excuse. [Page 282] But of this I have said already more then was needful.

Yet Mr. Hamond is ready to contest and main­tain his negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by. I hear again a sound of words in general hovering in the aire. But what are those grounds in particular, by which he will contest his doctrines? he tells us in his last Paragrapraph that they are proofes from Scri­ptures, or the first Writers (those of the first 300. yeares) or the four General Councils. But let us ask first by whose interpretation of Scripture he will contest his Negatives? hee will tell you, by his own, or some few others like himselfe, which (not professing themselves Infallible) he must tell you also hee is uncertain whether it be right or no: And is not this a wise ground to contest his Negatives by, against the posi­tive doctrine of Gods Church? But let us ask whether he thinks our Saviours command to hear the Church, bee a ground by which all Christians ought to bee concluded. Perhaps, after much shaking his head between loathness to reject our Saviours words, and unwilling­nesse to grant any thing to the Church, he will answer, yes; the Church of the first 300. yeares. Then ask him again, who taught all good Chri­stians, that they should hear the Church of the first 300. years onely, and then stop their ears against her perpetually for the future? hee is gravell'd. Again, ask him whether those first three century of yeares treat of all late▪sprung Negatives? Hee must tell you, No, they do not treat all our n [...]w▪controversies; but he will praise them notwithstanding, to put you [...]ft your que­stion; and tell you they are the purest and [Page 273] most primitive times. Ask him next, why hee recurs to such obscure times, and stark dumb in our present controversies? and hee must answer, if he will speak out candidly, that du­rum telum necessitas, necessity drives him to ad­here to them. All the following Ages, except that holy year in which was celebrated the Council of Chalcedon, inveighing most impurely against his new doctrine. Thus the Dr. chuses obscurity for the Patron of his cause, which can bee no Sun to reveal truth, though it may serve for a dark hole to hide falshood. Neither can hee from his grounds pretend otherwise to contest his Negatives, than by meer negative ar­guments, so as the inference must bee this; Our points of doctrine were not contradicted by the Writers of the first 300. yeares, therefore they are true: This is the utmost he can con­clude thence; whereas, to make this illation valid, he must first prove, that all truths about Faith were debated in those dayes; next, that all which was debated then, is come downe certainly to our times. Neither of which he will bee able to manifest. Will not any judi­cious Reader think such Rules as these like to binde all good Christians to bee concluded by them? Dr. Hammonds interpretations of Scrip­ture, Councils, and Fathers, that say nothing, or else very litle on the by, concerning the question; And lastly, negative arguments. To omit that the Writers of those his primitive times, speak as much and as efficaciously against the Doctors cause, as is imaginable their present circumstan­ces should invite or give them occasion. To end then this Chapter with the Doctors words something alter'd, these pitiful evasions, and un­warrantable [Page 274] shifts, put together, and applied to this matter, will manifestly charge him with an apparent guilt of this second branch of the second sort of Schism.

SECT. 5.

IN his tenth Chapter hee gives us a short Ser­mon concerning the third species of Schism, which is against mutual charity; divided by him into two Heads, of judging and despising others: both which hee very charitably dis­claimes in behalfe of their Church, and would very courteously present us with them. But, to omit his pious formalities, and come to grounds. Doe you think it is uncharitablenesse to judge as our Saviour judg'd; that is, to be­leeve what he said to be true? Our Sauiours judgment is, that if any one doe not heare the Church, let him be to thee, as a heathen or a publi­can. If therefore we see with our eyes, that you acknowledge no Church to be heard, and yet proceed not to such harsh termes as our Saviour himselfe hath laid down to us, I hope you will impute it to us as a great moderation, and not as uncharitablenesse. Now, that you did not hear the Church, when you broke from ours (and much lesse since) is most evident: For your first Reformers most manifestly rece­ded [Page 275] from the former acknowledged Govern­ment, Rule of Faith, Sacraments, Doctrines, and practises of the Roman Catholike Church, of which you were then a member, as hath been shewn and acknowledg'd; and she teaching them the contrary then, it could not bee said they heard her, when they began their Reforma­tions. Neither did they joyn themselves with any other Church, whom they might bee said to hear; nor was this doctrin taught by the very Church of England it selfe in the former age; since their Forefathers held and taught them a contrary beleefe. Evident then it is, that those few, who, in the time of King Henry the 8th, adhered to his lust-born Reformation, neither communicated with, nor heard any Church at Dr. Ham. C. 7. S. 12. all; but began a new Church, a new Govern­ment, a new Faith, and new practises, both without and against the command of that Church, which both they and their Forefathers, ever since that Church first taught them Chri­stianity, held to be the onely true Christian Congregation. How can we then, seeing e­vidently they heard not any Church, judge other­wise then that our Saviours words are true, that is, that they are in a sad condition; and you much fadder, who have not returned whence they receded, but followed their steps, and have made the breach wider; unlesse per­haps you think or hope the crime is lesse, be­cause there is now a greater multiplicity of offenders, which harden one another to obsti­ [...]acy by their number.

Next, is it uncharitablenesse not to renounce that Rule of Faith, in which clearly is founded [...]ll the Certainty we have of Christs Law, and [Page 276] all the hopes of our salvation; to wit, the inerrability of our Church, beleeved by our Ancestors, ever since Christs doctrine first dawn'd to the dark world? Yet this which witnesses your doctrine heretical, wee must absolutely renounce, ere wee can deem you other than Hereticks: Either wee must judge the highest Tribunal in the world, upon whose living voice wee build all Faith and true sence of the Scriptures, to have lyed; that is, wee must judge our highest Superiours, Pastours, Teachers, and Church to be erroneous in Faith, and heretical, or else we must judge you our equals at most, and (till you out-law'd your selves) her subjects, to be truly criminal, and rightly condemned.

Thirdly, Unus Deus, una Fides, unum Bap­tisma, there is but one Faith, as there is but one God. That your Faith and ours cannot be one, is most evident. All our whole Church condemning yours as heretical; and yours, when the humour takes them, as much detest­ing ours as erroneous: Nay, the most dreadful sacrifice of our Saviours Body and Bloud, our Holy of Holies, reviled and abhorred by your Art. 31. of the Church of England Church, as a blasphemous fiction and pernicio [...] imposture. Both our Faiths therefore cannot be one, and consequently one of them is none but erreur against Faith; which, if firmly ad­hered to, as it is, must be Heresie; either your Faith then, or ours, under penalty of main­taining a contradiction, must necessarily bee held as heresie. Now comes this Doctor, and accuses us for the most uncharitable men in the world, because wee will not judge our own Faith heretical, and so free theirs. Remember [Page 277] our Saviours words ( Mr. Dr.) He that believes not, is judg'd already; Joyn this to Una Fides, and our contradicting one another in most im­portant points of Faith; and you must necessa­rily conclude, that neither of us, if hee bee certain he beleeves and has that one Faith, can make conscience of judging the other, since the other is judged already, in receding from, or not having the true Faith. Nay, if he judge him not to be already judged, he must judge himself to be in the same state of a self-judg'd unbeleever; or rather, on the contrary, hee must make conscience of not judging him, for such; but, by a colloguing piece of courtesie, draw him into eternal perdition, and himselfe follow him, for his uncharitable connivence. Thus you see the Dr. never meddles with any point, but he blunders and destroys all the reason that ever concerns it.

Neither is it Charity, but partly fear of most open shame, partly ignorance of any grounds, or what belongs to a Church or a Government, which makes him not judge us to bee both He­reticks and Schismaticks; since one of us must be such, and he has a good mind to give us these new Titles, whom hee very angrily here calls his vaunting enemies. But as the former body C. 10 S. 3. of our Church, out of which their few Refor­mers receded, standing and remaining still one and the same, together with that plain and common notion that a tree is not said to be bro­ken from a branch, but the branch from the tree­leaves them so much light of apprehension, as not to dare to call us schismaticks; so the ac­knowledg'd antiquity of our doctrine, ever persisting the self-same, and the confessed inno­vation [Page 278] of theirs frights them, though unwilling­ly from styling us Innovators and Here­ticks.

Fourthly, our judging you, may indeed seem to bee errour, but malice and uncharitable­nesse it cannot. For since the grounds of our Faith, which necessarily oblige us to judge thus of you, and all such, were held by us, as firm­ly before you were ever dream'd of▪ as at pre­sent; you cannot object that wee invented new grounds to conclude so hardly of you in our thoughts; nor that they were purposely and maliciously aymed at your then-unhatch'd Congregation. So as you may, if you please, pretend that all the grounds, on which wee hold our Faith, Gods word, and its true In­terpretation, are erroneous, and therefore that our so judging of you, necessarily springing from those Grounds, is an errour; yet malice or uncharitablenesse you cannot call it, since wee cannot hinder the consequence from fol­lowing, without denying the grounds which infer it; that is, without denying the certainty and truth of all our Faith. And me thinkes the zeal of our Missionaries to reduce others from the ill state wee conceive them in, with daily hazarding, and often laying down actu­ally their lives for that end, both in this Coun­trey and many others, should transfer the charge of Uncharitablenesse to your colder par­t [...]; for sure it can bee no lesse to judge them uncharitable, who so readily and willingly lay down their dearest lives, to redeem the soules of their very enemies and persecutors from a beleeved danger. Yet this is the Doctors Go­liah's sword (as he calls it) wherewith he threat­ned [Page 279] to give a fatall wound; Though in truth I can discern no more edge in it than in a Beetle.

S. Cyprians testimony of Neminem damnan­tes, neminem a communione nostrâ arcentes, Con­demning no man, nor driving any from his Commu­nion, was spoken of himselfe, of his own tem­per towards the rest of Gods Church, acknow­ledged by himselfe to be such, and that in the point of Rebaptization of Infants; which, though held stiffely by himselfe; yet his chari­ty so moderated his zeal, that hee exprest his indifferency in those alledged words; Neither had he reason to deny Communion to other Ca­tholikes for a private opinion onely, till the Church had interpos'd her Authority. But where did the Doctor read either in S. Cyprian, or any other Father, that they admitted to their Communion those who had been condem­ned as Schismaticks and Hereticks, by all the Churches in communion with the See of Rome; as were the Protestants? Unlesse hee can shew this, hee abuses most absurdly that holy and learned Father, by seeming to make him allow a promiscons admission of all Sects, let them be what they please: which savours more of Doctor Hammonds spirit, who would have all come to his Church thas call themselves Chri­stians, than of Blessed S. Cyprians, who knew better what belonged to Church-order and discipline.

But I thought there was one of the Drs mysteries in it, when I saw the words of the Father alledged to an end so in [...]onsonant to his Doctrine, without quotation of any place, Book, Chapter, or Epistle. But Mr. Hammond will [Page 280] have the thing between us to bee onely diffe­rences C. 10. S. 3. in opinion; and indeed if that suppositi­on, that the onely ground of all our Faith, in which consists our main difference, were but an Opinion (as on his part it is not) I see no reason why either hee or I should trouble our selves to write Books in defence of an Opinionative Faith; it were better in that case to eat, drink, shake hands, and be merry; nor trouble our selves with thinking whether there bee a Heav'n or no, which wee can never come (the ground of Faith being but an Opinion) to any certain knowledge of.

In the last place of his first Part of this Schism, hee tells us, we beg the question in calling them Schismaticks, because they deny it, and of­fer to prove the contrary. Certainly Mr. Hammond has been so long in the Pulpit, that hee has forgot the fashion of the Universities, where there is no disputation, but the one affirmes, and the other denies; and the Defendant holds his Conclusion for true, till the Opponent proves the contrary; without being judged to incur the fault of begging the question. Be­sides, to what dark holes you run for clear proofes, we have already shewn; and, till you can shew us a greater Authority to acquit you, than is the Churches Tribunal, which con­demned you, your denying it will but double the fault, not clear it; especially since the ma­terial fact of Schism, that is, dividing from the persons with whom you formerly commu­nicated, cannot bee deny'd, however you may pretend the intention or cause of it to be doubt­ful or obscure.

Ere I leave this first part, of judging other [...] [Page 281] I desire the Reader to fancy in his own minde as perfect a Schismatick as can bee imagin'd, and therfore deservedly cast out by the Church▪ which done, let him read this Doctors tenth Chapter, and hee shall easily perceive that hee has not brought one word for himselfe, which the other justly-condemned schismatick may not with as good reason make use of. So easily it is discoverable by the manner of weapon the Dr. wears, whose side he is on, and whose banner he fights under.

His second charge of Schism against mutual Charity, is, that we despise and set at nought the Brother. Good Brother Doctor tell mee how we despise you? We pity you indeed, seeing the calamities you are fallen into by your for­mer fault; as also to see you persist still obsti­nately blind in the midst of your punishment: But despise you wee doe not. Yet you con­clude the cause by the effect, that is, our casting you out of the Church; and therefore say the guilt lies on our side. EUGE QUANTI EST SAPERE! Let us put the demonstration a posteriori in form, and you shall see the invinci­bleness of it.

• They, who cast others out of the Church, despise them, and are guilty of schism against Charity.
• But the Roman Church cast us out of the Church.
• Therefore they despise us, and are guilty of schism against Charity.

By which account no Church can condemn any one of schism, but shee must bee a schisma­tick her selfe; whereas wee did not cast them out, but upon their avowed contumacy against [Page 282] the orders of our Church, which the Doctor C. 9. S. 5. himselfe holds as a reason sufficient for the Protestant to excommunicate Catholikes. Where you see the first Proposition can onely be sustained by making this shameless assertion good, that no man can cast another out of the Church, but he must despise him, and conse­quently bee guilty of unchartiableness and schism. But the Doctor argues, as if a Rebel should confess at large, that indeed he rejected the Authority of the Supreme Magistrate, and re­ceded from the former Lawes and Customes of the Common-wealth; yet notwithstanding they must not punish him and his company; or if they doe, they are guilty of faction, sediti­on, dissention, and despising their fellowes. What King now could bee so hard-hearted as to punish a Rebel defending himself with such a wise, solid, and rational plea? The Doctor confess'd that they rejected the Authority of the Pope, formerly acknowledg'd to bee Su­preme; that they receded from the doctrines and practises of Rome, of which Church they were a little before members and subjects; and▪ when he has done, tells this Church it must not punish them, nor excommunicate them; or, if she doe, she is guilty of schism, unchari­tableness, of despising and setting at nought the Brother. But pray Mr. Doctor, what schism is it (after you had run away from the Church, ever since King Henry fell in love) to tell you in the tenth year of Queen Elixabeth, when she saw you would not mend, but grew daily worse and worse, that she could no longer forbear to punish your pertinacious disobe­dience?

[Page 283]After this the Doctor crouds together a great company of advantages of our Religion, with which wee pre-possesse our subjects; though the Doctor mistakes in some; and which hee sayes are so many reasons, why they doe not set us at nought, and despise us.

First, the advantage of our education. True, indeed we are taught to obey our Superiors, and hear our Pastors.

Secondly, the prescribed credulity to all that the Church shall propose. Good Mr. Dr, whom should the Faithful beleeve in telling them the sence of Gods word, if not the Church? such pitiful guessing Southsayers as you? Are not our Saviours words Hear the Church; and I am with you ever till the end of the world, plaine enough, and sufficient to secure their creduli­ty to such a Heav'n-assisted-Mistress? And indeed how can you think those, who cannot employ sufficient time to study out their Faith, should be otherwise instructed than by Credu­lity? Look whether your Proselytes doe not rely even upon your private Authority? so natural and necessary is it there should bee an Authority to governe weak peo­ple.

Thirdly, the doctrine of infallibility. That is, wee tell them Faith is certain, and hath cer­tain grounds: a grievous accusation!

Fourthly, the shutting up the Scriptures in an unknown Languge. That is, taking or­der that the unlearned nor unstable pervert them not to their own damnation.

Fifthly, the impossibility that the multitude should search or examine Tradition with their own [Page 284] eyes. That is, the Doctor is utterly ignorant what Tradition is. Is it such an impossible matter for the meanest person that hath age e­nough, to know what doctrine was held by Christians ten yeares agoe? or for them that liv'd ten yeares agoe, to know what was held 20▪ years since, and so forth. Especially, Faith not being a meer speculation, but shewing it selfe in practise, which proclames that heavenly law of Grace so openly, that all must see it ex­cept such as neither have no eyes, or wilfully shut them. This (Sir) is the main mystery of Tradition, which you imagin'd wee kept re­served like the Ark of the Testament and Mose's Tables, from the sight of the people.

Sixthly, The prosperous estate of the Roman Church, and the persecutions and calamities of yours. I see wee are in some sence beholding to our good fortune, or your misfortune, for your chari­ritablenesse. But you complain for nothing; what persecution suffer you in England in com­parison of the Catholikes? What Laws make it Treason to become a Protestant, as they do to bee reconciled to the Catholike Religion? What Oaths are impos'd on Protestants to re­nounce their Faith under pain of high Treason and forfeiture of their Estates, as in those of Supremacy and Abjuration against Catholikes? Read over the large Volume of Penal Statutes made in the dayes of your Dominion, and you shall find, that Catholikes can neither be mar­ried, nor baptiz'd, nor taught at home, nor sent abroad, nor maintain'd by their parents while they live, nor buried, when they dye, without incurring the danger of a Premunire, or some other severe penalty. In all these I am confident your kind of Protestancy never [Page 285] endured the least punishment; but a light cross is enough to overload a weak patience, and every small discountenancing makes those that have enjoy'd a long case, cry out, persecution. I see your parchment Church shrinks and [...]na [...] ­kles at the sight of the fire, while the Catho­like remaines firm and unconsum'd, nay grow [...] clearer in the midst of it. And yet I doe not intend to deny, many of you have been very great losers by these late Revolutions, but onely to say your sufferings are to bee refer'd to a civil, not religious account, or at least that nothing, even in your own judgment, es­sential to Religion, is persecuted, or so much as deny'd in England; for Bishops, and Service­book, and Kings Supremacy you must not call es­sential, without contradicting your own both profession and practise, since you can so kindly embrace your Sister-Churches, and communi­cate with them, who deny those points as zea­lously as the fiercest Anabaptist.

Lastly, our literal sound of Hoc est Corpus me­um, which the Doctor calls our principal espous­ed doctrine of Transubstantiation. Indeed wee had rather wed our beleefe to that sence of Gods word, which Fathers, Councils, and the perpetual doctrine and practise of Gods Church hath recommended to us, as the Virgin-daugh­ter of him who is the Truth; than to a loose Polygamy of 40. several interpretations; Mi­nerva's born of your own heads, whose mutu­ally-contradicting variety [...]hews them to come by the paternal line, from him who is the Fa­ther of all falshood.

For these prejudices instill'd into the hearts of Catholikes, the Doctor and his Church spare us [Page 286] very charitably, and are far from casting us out of the Church. For Gods sake, Mr. Dr. whither would you have cast us? Would you throw the house out of the windowes? I mean the Church, Gods house, out of the window of Schism, which you broke in the side of it.

Again, let us but see how artificial, nay in­comparable nonsence this Dr. speakes. I con­ceive nothing can bee cast out of a thing that was never in it; shew us then that▪ there was once a constituted Church of Protestants, go­vern'd by the King as Supreme Head, and hold­ing their doctrines and practises, in which the Roman Catholike once was, but receded from that Doctrine and Government, and invented this new Religion which hee holds at present. Unlesse the Catholikes were once thus in you, how could you cast them out? What a weak­ness is this to think that Robin Hood, Little Iohn, and a few Outlawes, doe King Richard and all England a great deal of favour in not casting them out of their Rebel-common­wealth, as no true members of it, and deny­ing them the protection▪ of their seditious counter-lawes; under which Lawes, and in which Common-wealth, neither the King nor his good subjects were ever reputed.

One word more ere I leave this point, to let the rational Reader see, whether the Pro­testants or we bee more chargeable of judging and despising others. Suppose, Mr. Doctor, wee, who are sons of the Catholike Church, had both judged and despised you upon our own private heads, it had been but to judge and despise our equals. But your Reformation [Page 287] had been impossible, unlesse you had first both judged, despised, and prefer'd your selves a­bove your Supreme Governours, the Church and all your Forefathers. The chief Government, C. 7. S. 5. impower'd actually over you in Ecclesiastical Affaires, you rejected and cast out of this Island. Next, many of your wise Brethren since, prea­ching, teaching, and writing whole Bookes, to shew that that Governour is Antcichrist, the Beast in the Apocalypse, and what not? Could these things bee done without judging and de­spising? You made Reformations and recessi­ons from the former Churches doctrine, cry'd out she had erred, was a Strumpet, the Whore of Babylon, impious, sacrilegious, idola­trous. Was not this the most rash judging, the most venemous railing at and reviling of Gods sacred Spouse, formerly your Mistresse and Mother, that ever was foam'd out of the mouth of madness it selfe? Again, the whole world, whom you esteemed, before, good Christians, and all your Ancestors in England, condemned, by their contrary beleefe, your new Reformed Doctrine: And, doe you think your innovators could have broach't their opposite doctrines without both judging and despising all this vast Authority? Your Charity then, Mr. Doctor, in this point, can bee onely imagin'd to consist in this, that you have not judged and despised your selves; for all else, that you thought formerly to deserve any Authority, you both judged, despised, rejected, revil'd, and condemned. In a word, our judging you, is our subscribing in our own thoughts to that Verdict, which the Church has past against you, whose tribunal was held [Page 288] by all the whole Christian world (and your selves also, till you became guilty) to be the most high and sacred that ever gave sentence since the world's Creation.

As for despising your persons, we deny it as a meer calumny; and professe our selves bound to honour every one according to his quality and degree; the reasons indeed, which you produce to clear your selfe from Schism, we despise, as worse than ridiculous; A Pa­radox in a matter indifferent, if maintain'd ingeniously, deserves its commendations: but the most manifest absurdities that can bee ima­gin'd, and in which are interessed mens sal­vations, such as is the renouncing an Authority granted to bee the most ancient, most sublime, most sacred, in the world, upon fallible, in­certain, and unevident grounds; and onely sustain'd by plain contradictions, false and self- [...]eign'd suppositions, ID ESTS of our own adding, the best proof not arriving so high as a probability; These, I say, Mr. Doctor, have nothing to secure them from our despising, unlesse perhaps, it bee their falling below ou [...] contempt. Of the mixt temper of these is the constitution of your Book; which shews that you have been used to row at your own dull pleasure in the shallow and softly-murmuring current of a Sermon; but never launch't with a well▪rigg'd Ship of Reason into the [...]oysterous Maine of deeper, controversies.

Thus the Doctor concludes his Treatise of Schism, closing up his tenth Chapter with these words; I foresee not any objection which may give mee temptation or excuse further to en­large on this matter. No truly, I could never [Page 289] yet discern you guilty of that fault, that objections gave you any great temptation to answer them; since I have not seen you put one Objection or Argument of ours worth a straw, from the beginning of the Book to the end; On the contrary, when you light on a wrong supposition of your own, as that the Pope is onely a private Patriarch; that the Papal Authority in this Island came to the Pope from the Title of its Conversion, or from Concession of our Kings; then I observe a very strong temptation in you to enlarge a whole Chapter upon that, which no body objects, ex­cept your own fancy.

Hee adds, that he professes not to know any other branch of Schism, or colour of fastning that guilt, upon our Church, made use of by any, which hee hath not prevented. Yes, Mr. Doctor, I told you before, how you have omitted the two chief branches of Schism, and most of all made use of by us against you; to wit, Schism from the whole body of the Church, and from its highest Tribunal, The General Coun­cils; which wee as freshly, and more chiefly, charge upon you, than any of the [...]est.

The Last SECT.

SChism being thus establish't, as legitimate and laudable, the Patron of it resolvs to pro­secute his Project home, and therefore strives in this last Chapter to wipe off any prejudice arising from their present distractions and persecutions, the proper effects of their Schism. The occasion seemes taken from some of our side, calling them The late Church of England; as if now a FUIT were put to their former being by their present misfortune. Our advan­tage C. 11 S. 1. offer'd from thence hee formes (and that rightly) in to this objection; that it is absolute­ly necessary to communicate with some one visible Church; that now the Church of England is not such, and consequently the Church of Rome, so illustri­ously visible, must be taken up in stead of it.

Thus far, abstracting from the partiality in his manner of expression, wee both agree, C. 11. S. 2. In answer to which, the Doctor alledges first That a member of the English Church was not under this guilt of not communicating with some one visible Church twenty yeares agoe; and conse­quently unlesse he have contracted this guilt since [Page 291] by commission or omission of something, hee can no more bee charged with the Crime now, than formerly. All this while the Doctor is in a mistake, and runs on very currantly, but quite out of his way. For we doe not object this present condition to them, as a crime or guilt (rather that which was twenty yeares and more ago, was their crime, and this their punishment) but as a different state from the former, or indeed more truly, the want of a State. For twenty yeares agoe, though they wanted the substance, yet they had at least a shadow or Ghost of a Church, which might delude the eyes of the simple; but now even that has disappear'd and vanish't into Aire. Our advantage, not taken, but offer'd, from thence is this, that as before they had a shew of a Church; so their adherents, whose wea­ker eyes could not distinguish substance from shadow, might have then some shadow of motive or excuse, for remaining in it, and not returning to us; but now this fayery appariti­on being gone, not even so much as the least resemblance of a motive is left to lead them through the wayless path of their dark do­ctrine; or hinder them from returning to the common beaten road of their Ancestors.

The objection of this then is not vain, as the Dr. imagins, since a new and stronger motive of­fer'd, deserves in reason a new, distinct, and fresh proposal. I grant therefore, Mr. Dr. that it is not your choice, crime, or offence, to bee in this misery, though it bee your fault that you were brought into i [...]; it bring a con­natural punishment, orderly subsequent to the vice of Schism, as shall afterwards be shewn. [Page 292] And the present invisibility of your Church is never the lesse true and real, though we admit it be your misfortune, not your crime; since a ship may as well bee cast away in an unavoydable storme, as by the negligence of the Pi­lot.

Neither doe I take it to be the saddest part of your infelicity (as you call it) but rather the greatest happiness that Gods sweetly-chastising mercy could have sent you, that, by weighing your present dissolution, and the causes of it, you may retrive your wandrings, and recollect all your scatter'd and distracted members into the ever-firmly United Body of the holy Catho­like Church.

Thirdly (for the Doctor was so eagerly C. 11 S. 3. zealous to clear his twenty-years-ago Prote­stant, that hee put first and thirdly, but quite forgot secondly) he runs on in his errour, that wee impute this state of their Church to the Protestant as a guilt, from which he goes about to clear him. For if he hath contracted this guilt, (saies the Dr.) it must be by some irregularity of a­ctions contrary to the standing Rule & Canons of this Church; whereas I conceive it very regularly con­sequent to your new Canons, that you should fall into this very condition you now groan under; For your Rule and Canons granting the Authority of the Secular Power to be the BASIS of your Reformation, Head of the Church-Government, Supreme in Ecclesiastical matters, and your onely defence and excuse, when wee ask you upon what Authority you left us, it is natural and imbred in the very primogenial Constitution of your Church, that it should be dissolvable at the pleasure of the [Page 293] same power which set it up. It is not there­fore the standing to the Rule and Canons of your Church, which secures you in a firm and immutable perpetuity, but those very grounds are they which engage you in a fleeting and perpetual mutability.

You applaud with your Encomiums the Pro­testant, that hath actually lost his possessions, liberty, &c. rather than depart from his rule; which truly I conceive a very irrational action in him, and deserving more pity than commendations. For the 39. Articles, being the most distinct Rule Protestants have, one of which defines that General Councils both can Erre and have erred; whence follows a fortiori, that their own Meet­ing where these Articles (their Rule) were Art. 21 made, being at most but a Provincial Assembly, is much more lyable to errour, I see no reason why hee shold lose the certain possession of present goods for maintaining an uncertain opinion: especially since hee holds salvation can bee had in other Sects, as appeares by Dr. Hammonds admitting all whom hee calls Chri­stians C. 9. S. 3. to his Communion. And if the Doctor reply, it was their conscienciousness to hold what they supposed true: I answer, their conscience is imprudently govern'd, whilst it instigates them to professe with their own so great disadvantage and loss, what they had no obligation to hold; for none can be oblig'd to the beleef of a point which himself & those who propose it are uncertain whether it be true or no. Though (if I be not misinform'd) the greater part of your suffering-fellow-Protestants have had more wit, and most commonly were put out upon other pretences than their Religion.

[Page 294]Thus▪ far the Doctor hath proceeded clearing himselfe from the want of a visible Church, imagining we object it a guilt or crime, whereas we only propose it and more urgingly press it to the consideration of the misled Pro­testants, as a decay, corruption, annihilation of the former visible shadow of a Church, and the occasion of a new fault in them; that, ha­ving lost their own, they return not to ours, out of which they confesse they came, and of which they protested theirs to be a mem­ber. C. 11. S. 5.

In the next place hee tells us, that as yet, Blessed bee God, the Church of England is not in­visible, it is preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained, and multitudes rightly baptized, none of which have fallen off from their profession. Where the last words are most certainly true, if he means that none of those who yet stand have as yet fallen off, which I conceive is his mean­ing; for all these who have not stood, have fal'n off, which are enow to shew of what mettal their Church was made; and whether more have fal'n or stood, let the Doctor judge. But as for the rest of his selfe-congratulation, it is a miserable piece of self flattery, and which his own grounds quite discountenance. For if a Church be a Congregation of the Faithful, and Faith (as S. Paul argues) comes by hearing, hearing from preaching, preaching from mission, or being sent; which mission is an Act of Iurisdiction; it follows, that if their Bishops and Presbyters have now no Iurisdiction, then the Protestants have neither lawful missi­on, preaching, hearing, faith, nor consequently, Church. Now, that they can claim no Iuris­diction, [Page 295] followes out of their own grounds; for when we urge them upon what Authority they cast off the former Ecclesiastical Superior, governing Gods Church in chief, they run for their defence, to the secular Power, to which they attribute supreme Iurisdiction in matters Ecclesiastical within this Island; It is acknow­ledg'd (saith the Dr. C. 7. S. 2.) that the Papal Power in Ecclesiastical Affaires, was both by Acts of Convocation of the Clergy, and of Parliament, cast out of this Kingdome. Thus you see he re­curs to a power meerly secular, in the Parlia­ment, for renouncing and abolishing a spiritual power and Jurisdiction, held before, greater than ever the Protestant Prelacy was imagin'd. Meerly secular, I say; for the Doctor confesses here, that it is easie to believe that nothing but the C. 7. S. 5. apprehension of dangers which hung over them, could probably have inclined the Clergy to that their first Act; And how great influence this apprehen­sion of danger might have over the secular part of the Parliament, is easie to be determi­ned, since they saw the gravest Patriot in the Kingdome in danger of death, for holding against the Kings new pretended Title; and many others, for the same respect, most cruelly persecuted. A Parliament therefore meerly of Seculars, and those such as can in no wise be presum'd free, was held by you of sufficient Authority to renounce a Jurisdiction, deemed formerly much higher, and known to bee al­most ten times longer setled in possession than your Prelacy; I see not therefore why a secular power should not bee, in your grounds, suffi­cient to abolish a jurisdiction, which onely leaned and relied on a secular support.

[Page 296]But what was done in King Henry's dayes, being disannul'd again by both the spiritual and secular power in Queen Maries Reign, must necessarily bee held of you invalid, if you will goe consequently to your own grounds. Let us then examine the resurrection of your Church, by a Parliament held in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth; In which Parliament (to omit the small title the Queen had to the Crown, being born of a second bedfellow, whilst King Henry's former Wife was yet alive, and declared illegitimate both by the whole Parliament and her own Fathers Act) were wanting the spiritual Lords, the Bishops; who were, for their Religion, kept, at that time, in prison; For which reason, when a Quere was raised about the beginning of the late long Parliament, whether Acts made without Bi­shops, were valid, it is said to have been resol­ved affirmatively, upon this ground, because otherwise the Protestant Religion, voted by a Par­liament, in which was no Bishops, would be invalid also.

I see not then what great advantages could be in that Parliament, to Vote out the greater Authority of the Pope, or give your new­made Bishops (ordained God knowes how) Iurisdiction; but the same may be pretended by a succeeding Parliament, to deprive them, and set up a new Form of their own. Certain it is, that you acknowledge the Secular Power for the Source and first Fountain of your Iu­risdiction; Since then, the present Secular Power has put a stop to your father Ordina­tion, and disannul'd your former Iurisdiction, your own grounds conclude you de facto no [Page 297] Church; for if you have no Iurisdiction, you can have no influence of power over the Lay­ity; and so no spiritual Common▪ wealth made up of Bishop, as Head and Pastour, and of the Layity, as body and flock. And, as for the pre­sent, this general suspension (should we say no more) of your Ecclesiastical power, makes you de facto no Church; so, in time the very inward right it selfe, which you pretend, may be justly extinguish't. For, since your Jurisdi­ction confessedly depends on the secular Au­thority, it followes, if this be suspended or abolish't, that must needs share in the same fate: Now, all the world agrees, that not onely the possession of a secular power may be interrupted by force, but the Right it selfe in time be absolutely lost; and the new Govern­ment, however at first introduc't, be at length purged of its original blemishes, into a clear and unquestionable Title. In which case cer­tainly your Church would be no more visible in England, than it is now at Geneva. Which sufficiently differences your condition from that of the Primitive Christians, or the pre­sent English Catholikes, they claiming a Ju­risdiction underived from the secular power.

In vain therefore would it be to tell us their Character remains, and therfore they are stil Bi­shops and Presbyters, since the character can only entitle them to a name, the thing being gone, to wit, their power of Iurisdiction, and consequently their Mission; For if they have no Authority to teach and preach more than the Layity, they are level'd into an equal pitch with them; so as now they cannot bee said to bee a body, but a company of mutually distracted [Page 298] parts; not an orderly Church or Congregation▪ but a rude and indigested Chaos of Confusion.

It is not then, Mr. Doctor, your serving God in private Families which wee object to you for being an invisible Church (which you run upon in your 5. Sect.) but that which your self confesse here, that Now all Order, Form, Bishops, and Liturgy is thrown out of your Church together. It is your want of Pastoral and Episcopal Au­thority, which makes us conclude you no Church. Yet so good is your Logick, that in the next paragraph, you think, though Bishops be abolish't, yet in case this come not through your C. 11 S. 7. fault, it cannot be charged against you: so as though all Prelacy and Superiority be taken away, that is, though there be none that have power to preach and teach, and all be reduc'd into an equally-level'd Anarchy, yet as long as it hap­pens not through your fault, yen are still a Church; As if Doctor Hammond should say, though his body were cut into millions of in­coherent Atomes, yet, as long as this happens not through his fault, it is still a well-ordered Body, ID EST, it is still Hammond.

The parts of Gods Church are compacted in­to a Whole by Order, and as much depend upon Spiritual Superiours, having power to teach and preach Christs Law, as the Common-wealth doth on Secular Magistrates to preserve their temporal Lawes, and govern according to them; without this order the Whole is dissol­ved, the Body is lost, the Church is gone. Doubt­less, Mr. Doctor, it is not the fault or choice of the present Protestants, that they are thus bassled and persecuted (which yet you have spent this whole Chapter, except onely the [Page 299] first Paragraph, to prove.) so needs no such great and large disproose, to manifest that that which is so much against mens wills, should bee their Choice and Crime. Yet wee may justly impute your Churches ruine to the san­diness of her foundation; which being the Authority of the secular Governors, must ren­der her liable to change, as often as the un­constant wind of temporal circumstances shall alter the former Government, or as oft as the former Government yet remaining shall see it necessary for the present peace or conveniences of the Common wealth, to introduce or ad­mit the more prevailing sway of a new Reli­gion.

But I foresee that the Doctor, to avoid this objection, will cling in with us, and call the Antichristian and Idolatrous Romanists their dear Brethren, and tell them they acknowledge their Iurisdiction and Mission to come from them, desiring them not to reject them now in their greatest necessity, but let them seem to have an Authority deriv'd from the Apostles by their meanes; proffering that they, in cour­teons recompence, will acknowledge Rome to bee a true Church. This indeed is ordinary with them; but yet as frivolous still as the former. For the Authority which our Church could give you, was onely to teach and preach Catholike Doctrine, and ordain others to doe the same; to govern the Catholike flock, and to preserve them in the anciently received U­nity of Faith. The Authority to doe these could come indeed from us, and so if any who pretend to have received Iurisdiction from us, continue to execute and govern themselves by [Page 300] that Commission, so far they are warranted by the former Authorization; but if they went beyond their Commission, nay more, acted quite contrary to their Commission, I wonder what Iurisdiction or Mission they can pretend, as derived from us. Our question then is of such a power as your Bishops pretend to, and exercised; that is, of bearing the Ensign of a Squadron of the Churches Enemies, Preach­ing an opposite Doctrine to the Church, which you pretend to have impower'd you, and or­daining others to doe the same.

Evident it is that the Roman Catholike Church, which is the only spiritual power you can think to have any Iurisdiction or Mission from, never gave you this Authority, where­fore it must come to you from the meer secular Power; on this Power therfore is built all the Authority you have to act as Protestants, or in order to the Protestant Church; and con­sequently the whole building of your Church was erected onely and solely upon this uncer­tain and sandy foundation. This made Mr. Hooker (one of the best, and perhaps the most Lib. 5. num. 79 prudent Writer of all that profession) affirm of their Church, that it was not likely to conti­nue more than fourscore years; nor could he judge otherwise, seeing it bear evidently the Princi­ples of corruption and mutability in its very constitution; to wit, the materia prima of a secular Basis; which continually exposed it to a mortality, as the formes of Government should have their ever-limited period; and discovering the professors and Governours of it to bee none of those to whom our Saviour promised his perpetual assistance to the end of the [Page 301] world. How much happier then would you be, if leaving this fleeting and unbodied sha­dow, you would return and unite your selves to the Catholike Church, Which, enjoying this promise from our Saviour of an indefectible perpetuity, not onely experiences the certain faithfulness of that promise in a large continu­ance of 1600. yeares, but also sees with Evi­dence, perhaps more than scientifical, that the walls of this Hierusalem are built upon such strong foundations, that the Church, and the Authority and Jurisdiction of her Governours can never fail or decay; since they rely not on the slippery and weak prop of the temporal power for their Authority, but on those who received it from the eternal never-altering Fountain of all power, with Commission to delegate and transmit it with an uninterrupted succession to the future Governours of the Church, till wee all meet in the Unity of Glory.

Nor is the means of transmitting this Heaven­founded Jurisdiction to Posterity, less certain than is the law of grace, written in the hearts of the faithful, in indelible characters, that inviolable Rule of Faith, a Rock too adaman­tine to be undermin'd by human policy. Let then her enemies, though even Princes, rage as much as they please, nay even bandy and conspire together to subdue this free-born Kings Daughter to their prophane yoke; her Jurisdi­ction, as it ever hath, so will it ever remaine secure and inviolate, being independent of them, and (by reason of the state of Eternity, her end and aym) of a superiour order to their Authority; which was instituted only for the rightly dispencing the transitory goods of this world.

[Page 302]Your parallel of the Jews suffering under the Zelot's fury, or the old Roman yoke▪ which you make account is so evident, that the Rea­der will supercede all necessity of making it up, I conceive to aym very little or nothing at your purpose: For (though they intruded unfit men into the Priestly dignity, yet they did not a­ctually, neither could they possibly take away the Jurisdiction of the High Priest, because this Jurisdiction was not given them by those secu­lar powers, but by God himself; the contrary of all which happens in your case, as has been shewn: For the Jurisdiction of your Bishops may be taken away by the same Parliamentary power that set it up. That it was not their guilt, nor yours neither, wee willingly grant; and I wonder you could imagine us so unwise, as to object that to be your voluntary Crime, which you cannot but know we hold to bee your involuntary punishment.

Your wishes and prayers for peace and com­munion among all who are called Christians, are no less ours; and this, not in words only, but in efficacious endeavours; and, in several Nations, with daily labours, and extreamest hazards, to reduce the straying flock to their safely-guarded fold. Nay, this Communion is so vehemently desired and thirsted after by us, that we are ready to buy it at any rate, except the forfeiture of the Certainty of Faith and its Rule; the forfeiture of which, is the loss of our own Communion also. If Mr. Hammond can perswade himself and his friends to return to this Rule of Faith, the Churches Infallibility, which onely can unite us in the same stedfast belief of Christs Doctrine; and to acknowledg [Page 303] the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome; in the acknowledgment of which, consists the con­stant unity of Church-government; then not onely we, but all the Angels and Saints in hea­ven, who rejoyce at the conversion of sinners, shall joyn in exalting Jubilees for the Blessed and long wish't for return of òur wandring and self-disinherited Brethren. The former of these (if Mr. Hammond will not beleeve it) I have told him where he may see it as visibly as Rush­worth's Dial. & the A­pol. for Traditi­on. is possible any thing should be made to the eye of Reason. The latter, to wit, the Popes Supremacy, is defin'd in the Florentine Council, subscribed to both by the Greek and Latine Churches; where, what the fourth General Council, held at Chalcedon, wrote to Pope Leo, that [...], that he was over the members of the Church, as their Head, is more plainly exprest in these words, Wee define that the holy Apostolical See, and the Bishop of Rome have the primacy over all the world, and that the Bishop of Rome is Successour to S. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and truly Christs Vicar, and Head of the whole Church; and the Father and Teacher of all Christians, and that there was given him in S. Peter from Christ a full power to feed, direct and govern the Catholike Church: To these two points, if the Protestant will sub­scribe, that is, secure inviolate that which tou­ches the root, and most vital and intrinsecal part of the Chruch, to wit, the Rule of Faith; she will not stick to open her outward rind, that is, offer some violence to her uniformity, in indifferent and more extrinsecal practises, to re-ingraft their dry and sapless branch, which now lies withering, into her ever-flourishing [Page 304] body. To which, if these poor endeavours of mine, may in the least contribute, I shall for the future not reprehend, but congratulate Dr. Hammond for his fortunate Errours, and ho­nour his ill grounded reasons, as of richest va­lue; which, by stirring up others to detest them, and shew what weak pleas are produci­ble for Schism, became the happy occasion of his own, and others salvation; and of Embo­soming the Daughter-Church of England in a Charitable Communion with her dearest Mo­ther; by whose painful throwes she was first born to Christ, her Spouse; at whose breasts shee suck'd the first milk of his Doctrine, and from whose arms and ever-cherishing embraces, first by the malignity of an ill-govern'd passion, next by humane policy, shee has been so long separated.