SCHISM DISARMED OF The Defensive Weapons, LENT IT By Doctor Hammond, and the Bishop of DERRY. By S. W.  Prov. 17. 15. Qui justificat impium, & qui condemnat justum abominabilis est uterque apud Deum. 
At PARIS: By M. Blageart. 1655.   

To the Reader.  
BEfore you can have passed three Chapters, I know you will be objecting, that the blows I give are too rude for so civil an Adversary, and therefore I have placed these few Lines to meet you in the very entry, and stop you, till you have answered this Question. How would you take it, if one should spit in your face, and justify the affront, because his breath is sweet? or, What would you say to him, that ruins your Estate by Perjury, and defends himself, that he held up his hands and eyes to Heaven, and swore demurely? Whatever Answer you give, I am confident it will perfectly clear my behaviour towards the Doctor; with whom I should have very little contention, were the difference between us in any thing of less concernment than Eternity.  
Let him, if he please, maintain, with all his Rhetoric, that King Richard was a straight and handsome Person; let him employ as much wit▪ as he thinks he has, to prove Perkin Warbeck no Sergeant; for my part, I shall be so far from finding fault with him, that I shall not so much, as seek any: But if he will abusively treat matters of so high importance as Religion, and think to escape, because his perverse meaning goes disguised, under the mask of a courteous stile. I conceive myself sufficiently warranted, if sometimes in pulling off his Vizard, I twitch him by the Beard; especially since falsehood is so much the worse, the better it is expressed, every one being apt to believe there is surely some Reason, where there appears no Passion.  
S. W.   

THE Table of the Contents of the several Sections.  

THe Introduction.  
The First Part. Containing an Answer to the Four first Chapters. 

Sect. 1. NOtes upon Dr. Hammonds first Chapter, Of the danger and sin of Schism P. 1  
Sect. 2. Concerning his notion of Schism, and the Excommunication of the Church 6  
Sect. 3. Of his Plea of a weak Conscience, not suffering him to subscribe to the Church's Doctrine, against his present persuasion 14  
Sect. 4. Concerning the ground of Unity, groundlesness of Schism; and of his manner of arguing to clear himself of the later 21  
Sect. 5. Contains some observations upon his third Chapter, Of the division of Schism 29  
Sect. 6. Of the Doctors advance towards the Question, in the beginning of his fourth Chapter 37  
Sect. 7. Of his first Evidence against St. Peter's Universal Pastorship 42  
Sect. 8. The Examination of his second Evidence, that the Apostles had distinct Provinces, so to prejudice St. Peter's Universal Pastorship 48  
Sect. 9 Some Consequences out of the Doctor's former Grounds, and his further process in Evidencing 55  
Sect. 10. The Examination of Ten dumb Testimonies, which Dr. Hammond brings to plead for him 63  
Sect. 11. The Examination of his irrefragable Evidence, and other silent Testimonies produced by him 71  
Sect. 12. Another dumb show of the Doctor's Testimonies, to prove St. Peter over the jews only 80  
Sect. 13. His second general Evidence against St. Peter's Supremacy, from the Donation of the Keys, found to be obscurer than the former 87    
The Second Part. Comprehending the Answers of the Fifth, six, and Seventh Chapters. 

Sect. 1. OF the pretended Primogeniture of Antioch, and the Doctors mistake of the Council of Chalcedon 105  
Sect. 2. His Arguments from the Canon of Ephesus, and the Instances relating to Justiniana Prima refuted 115  
Sect. 3. A discovery of the Doctor's Fundamental Error, which runs through this Chapter, and his ingratitude for our Country's Conversion 125  
Sect. 4. His continuance of the same Fundamental Error, and some mistaking Proofs, That Kings can erect Patriarchates.  
Sect. 5. The Doctor's Testimonies from Councils and Histories, found to be partly against himself, partly frivolous, and to no purpose 144  
Sect. 6. The Examination of his Testimonies produced to prove his Fundamental Position, That Kings are supreme in Spiritual Matters 159  
Sect. 7. Other empty Proofs of his pretended Right, confuted 169  
Sect. 8. A Reply to the Doctor's Narrative▪ Confession of his Schism 178  
Sect. 9 The nature of Schism, fetched from its first Grounds; and the material part of it fastened on the Protestants 193  
Sect. 10. That the reforming Protestants were, and are guilty of the formal part of Schism 203  
Sect. 11. The Doctor's Argument, That the Pope's power in England was derived under the King's Concession, refuted 210    
The Third Part. Containing the Answers to the Four last Chapters of Dr. Hammonds Schism. 

Sect. 1. HIs second sort of Schism, and his pretence, That they retain the way to preserve Unity in Faith, refuted 229  
Sect. 2. His evasion in recurring to the first Three hundred years, and concerning the humble and docible temper of his Church 245  
Sect. 3. An Examination of some common Notes, produced by the Doctor, to particularise his Clients, to be no Schismatics 253  
Sect. 4. Of his charitableness in admitting all to his Communion, and our pretended uncharitableness, for refusing to go to their Assemblies 263  
Sect. 5. Our pretended uncharitableness in judging, and despising others, retorted upon the Objectors 274  
Sect. 6. Our Objection, that the pretended Church of England is now invisible, maintained and asserted to be just 290    
Down-Derry, Or Dr. Bramhals, Just Vindication of the Church of England, refuted 305    

The Stationer to the READER.  
THough the entertainment, to which the Author invites thee, be almost wholly new, and the Food substantial and solid; yet the Stomach of the Times, seeming quite cloyed with Controversy, obliged both him to quicken thy relish with a little Piquant Sauce, and me to tempt thy coy Appetite with this short and drolish  

BILL of FARE.  
1 HOw the Doctor of Divinity▪ has forgot his Accidence Pag. 7  
2 Dr. Hammond turned a zealous Advocate for Bastwick, Burton, and Prynn's Ears 16  
3 How the Doctor has found judas a Diocese among the Devils; wherein he would have St. Mathias succeed him 48  
4 How the Doctor has got all the Apostles leave to play, except St. Peter and St. Paul; and, consequently, established the PP. their Successor, Universal Pastor 56  
5 How the Doctor makes account, there is no Communion but in Eating and Drinking 64  
6 The Doctors miraculous gift, in making dumb Witnesses speak as he pleases 63, 64, etc.  
7 A general Rendezvouz of the Doctor's auxiliaries 84  
8 The Doctor brings his Evidences, at length, to a fair Market, by the unlucky introduction of one blabbing Testimony p. 87  
9 The Doctor falls into a sudden fit of Popery, too violent for the constitution of many strong Papists 95  
10 Well done Doctor 96  
11 How Dr H: would have all the Apostles called Peter 101  
12 The Doctor winks and fights 112  
13 The properer man the worse luck 120  
14 A comfortable sample of the Doctor's Annotations, in Folio, on the Bible 167  
15 How Doctor H: will have the allowance of a House to dwell in, and Meat to eat, the erection of a Primacy 172  
16 The Doctor constant to his Principles, putting the strongest Argument in the Rear 173  
17 The Doctor cries, he is out of his way, when he comes to a Passage he cannot get over 177  
18 How Doctor Hammond blows and sups all at once 187  
19 The Doctor as valiant as Sir john Falstaff 211  
20 Doctor Hammonds two sorts of Gifts, given and notgiven 214  
21 How the Doctor's ill-favoured, etc. dashes out the best 221  
22 Dr. H. like the Fellow that thought the Sun set at the next Town 226  
23 The Doctor's confusion, for Methods sake 230  
24 Dr. H. neither goes to Church, nor stays at home 233, etc.  
25 The Doctors courteous point of Faith, obliging all the Apostles, under pain of Damnation, to make a leg to St. Peter 241  
26 The Doctors wise appointment of time and place for his Duel, in a Wilderness and a da●k night 246  
27 A magnanimous piece of docible humility, in Dr. H. and his Church 251  
28 How the world must needs look upon Dr. Hammond, as another St. john Baptist 254  
29 The Doctor's Logic, proving Protestants no Schismatics, because they have all Noses on their faces 270  
30 How Dr▪ Hammonds Church keeps open house for all comers 273  
31 The Doctor never meddles with any point, but he blunders, and destroys all the Reason that ever concerns it 277  
32 The Doctors Goliahs' sword has no more edge than a Beetle 278  
33 Dr. Hammonds artificial, incomparable nonsense 286, etc.   
And for digestion, a solid Postpast, under the slight name of Down-Derry.   

THE Introduction.  
IT bred in me at first some admiration, why the Protestant Party, who heretofore seemed still more willing to skirmish in particular Controversies, then bid battle to the main Body of the Church, or any thing which concerned her Authority, should now Print Books by Pairs, in defence of their disunion from her, and subducing themselves from her Government. Especially, at this time, when it were more seasonable for the Church of England, (as they entitle themselves) to denounce to those many minute Sects gone out of their Communion, the unreasonableness of their Schism, then plead the reasonableness of their own; and to threaten them with the Spiritual Rod of Excommunication, unless they return, then cry so loud Not guilty, after the lash has been so long upon their Shoulders.  
But the Reason of the latter, (I mean why their Pens rather decline to endeavour the reducing their own Desertors) I conceive, is, because no colourable pretence can possibly be alleged by the Protestants, why they left us, but the very same will hold as firm, nay, much more for the other. Sects, why they left them. For, that we pressed them to believe false Fundamentals Dr. Hammond, and his Friends will not say, since they acknowledge ours a true Church, which is inconsistent with such a lapse: They were therefore, in their opinion, things tolerable which were urged upon them; and, if not in the same rank, yet more deserving the Church should command their observance, than Copes or Surplisses, or the Book of Common-Prayer; the allowance whereof they pressed upon their Quondam-brethrens.  
The Reason of the former, that is, their earnestness at this time to clear themselves from the imputation of Schism, I conjecture to be the self-consciousness of feeling at length the smart of their own folly, in the present dissipation of their Church, proceeding from their leaving that Body, in which alone is found the healthful vigour of Peace-maintaining Discipline, the want of which causes all their distractions. Yet, not willing to acknowledge an inveterate Error, they seek to cover the deformity of their breach, with the veil of innocency; that that which evidently causes their misfortune, may at least seem not to have been their fault.  
And indeed, this is the last game they have to play; for after their coy conceit of an Invisible Church was unmasked, and found plainly to be nothing but a blind Chimaera, and less than a Conventicle: After that, by consequence, a visible Church was found necessary to perpetuate a line of Successive Governors; without obedience to which, they saw by dear experience all Order would be levelled into Anarchy: After the consideration of this had obliged them to grant, that to raise a Schism, or to subtract one's self from Obedience to those Governors, was in a high manner destructive to God's Church; and therefore a sin deserving the deepest damnation in the abetters and maintainers of it, as also in their voluntary adherents: Lastly, since it was most manifestly acknowledged on all sides, That our Church was that Body of Christianity, in whose Bowels their Predecessors, the first Reformers, were bred; with whom only, and no other community in the world, before the Rupture was made, they communicated; and from which Body, by little and little they became, and now are totally disunited; they saw plainly, and Dr. Hammond will not stick to grant it, That no Sacrifice remained to expiate that heinous sin of Schism, in the present Protestants, but to wipe off the Aspersion from themselves, and lay the occasion of the breach at the doors of the Catholic Church.  
This is the scope, as far as I understand, of Dr. Hammonds Book, at which I aim this Answer: Only solicitous, that he was so tedious in things acknowledged by both parties, or which little or nothing concerned the main point in question, as to make up three parts of his Books of these trifles: And of the very hinge of the Controversy, which is, When and why the Schism began, to say so little, and so weakly; that being the chief knot to be untied in this difficulty.  
But, since the Doctor will have it otherwise, I must be content in most of the Book, to Answer mere words, that is, to fight with the air; at least, when any thing occurs, which may seem to have some mixture of a solider element, I shall allow it such a reflection, as I conceive in Reason it may deserve.  
I am his Friend, and will go along with him hand in hand through his whole Book; Not that the solidness of the Treatise itself requires so exact a proceeding, but the weakness of less-understanding Readers, who suspect frivolous things that bear a bulk and a specious show of Words, to be important, unless the Answerer either outword them, or manifest them plainly to be impertinent; of which, as the former is far from my intent, so the later must, for the reason alleged, be a part of my present Task, and consequently I hope, a satisfactory Plea for my seeming unnecessary tediousness to the more judicious Reader.   
SCHISM DISARMED.  

THE FIRST PART.  
Containing an Answer to the four first CHAPTERS:  

SECT. 1.  
Notes upon Dr. Hammonds first Chapter, of the Danger and Sin of Schism.  
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 Preface, indifferent to either side. Only I desire by way of Memorandum, that we may reflect well upon, and bear in mind that virtue 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 virtue of the first magnitude. And the indifferent Reader will a● once both easily discern hereafter, whether the present Catholics, who hear the Church, and believe her in her Lawfully authorised Governors, or the first Reformers, who without any, and against all Authority, disobeyed and disbelieved her, have the better title to that eminent virtue; and he will also wonder why the Doctor should face his Book with the Encomiums of that Virtue, the bare explication whereof applied 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 virtue, 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 Rhetoric, 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 Schism; not Sacrilege, Idolatry, Parricide, that it is obnoxious to peculiar marks of God's indignation, Antichristianism, worshipping 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 Catholic Church. Instead of which last words, the Doctor, full of jealousies and fears, puts, the Church truly Catholic, as if there were much danger, lest perhaps any should imagine Christ's Church (of which I conceive St. Austin meant it) to be untruly Catholic.  
And now, what good, honest, well-minded Reader, not much acquainted with the Doctor's manner of Rhetoric, 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 Schismatics. 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 controversy is more nearly concerning his salvation, than this; as appears by the abominable character of Schism, which the Doctor hath with so much pains deciphered to be an Abridgement of all the most hainons, damnable, inexcusable, unexpiable vices that can be named or imagined. 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 man's 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 Schism springs) all the world sees and acknowledges: What remains then to justify 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 truly and properly Schismatics; 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 yourself, however 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 Schism made between us, than 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 world's eyes.  
But you desire only that the truth of the matter 
S. 9▪  of fact be looked into, whether the charge of Schism be sufficiently proved, etc. It is proved, Mr. Doctor, if you be proved to have so misbehaved yourselves within the Church, that, to conserve he Government inviolate, she was forced to our-law 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 untouched. 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 Schism; at least such as you thought fit, and seemed most plausibly answerable by the notes you had gleaned up and down to that purpose.   

SECT: 2▪  
Concerning his Notion of Schism, and the Excommunication of the Church.  
HIs second Chapter begins with the distinction of Heresy and Schism; 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 Schism is a dissenting from Authority, and Heresy, an introducing a false doctrine into the Church; but also 
C. 2. S. 1.  that all heresy (which it concerns his cause to be willing to pretermit) must necessarily include Schism, and we shall not fall out about this point: For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying electio, that is, a choosing to onesself some private opinion contrary to the commonly▪ received Doctrine of the Church, it follows, that by every Heresy the Church is truly wounded and rend asunder, the proper effect of Schism. So that, to conserve herself in her primogenial integrity, when she 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 eyed Criticism about the passive vetb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he 
●. 2: ●. 2.  will have to signify reciprocal action, and passion from and upon himself, and to answer to the Hebrew Hithpael; which he tells you, he could largely exemplify in the use of other words. But first, if we may have leave to criticise upon so acute a Critic, since it is only for want of conjugations (as he says) 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 signify the neutropassive. So that all the Doctor's Criticism (at the best) is come to this, that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 show his art, to take it at this time. Secondly, though in the Hebrew Language the Voices 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 Schoolboy, that in the Latin and Greek Tongues, Voices and Conjugations are things distinct, and of a far different nature. The former alluding chiefly to the sense and signification of the word; as appears in our active, passive, etc. the latter being taken from some diversity in the letters of the word; which in the Greek is the characteristical letter, in the Latin, 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 tells us, a passive verb must have a neuter signification for want of Conjugations; as if vapulo and amo could not be of the same conjugation, and yet have a different sense, the one signifying actively, the other neutrally. Thirdly, if Conjugations will do the deed, that is, make the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify 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 expressed by the Latin 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 far 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 Latin neutrals, as such, do not signify reciprocal action or passion from and on himself, though the Dr. says they fully express 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 burned itself. Sixthly, the Hebrew Hithpael, when it▪ is not coincident with Kal, or Niphal, (as sometimes it is) signifies an express action upon itself, as fully as two words in Latin or Greek can render it; insomuch as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 express, as perfectly, he delivered over himself, as in Greek is denoted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or in Latin by tradidit seipsum; and then I would know where the Doctor, among all his critical observations, can show me one Verb in all the Latin or Greek Language to parallel it, or (as the Doctor expresses it) that is of the nature of Hithpael. Seventhly, either he meant his Criticism 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 signify a thing done, in a sense as perfectly passive as can be imagined, without relating at all to the person, or any the least intimation whether the action, which inferred that passion, were performed by himself or some others; as appears by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which denote a work done, an Ordinance constituted, without reference to the person that wrought or ordained it. The selfsame is visible in our present verbal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies a rupture made; for which reason St. Paul's words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1 Cor▪ 11: 18:  are rendered 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 sense 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 sense; 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 says) of the Hebrew Hithpael, is such an observation as none could ever before discern but Doctor Hammond; 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 controversy between us, and good enough before he meddled with it, he has made it by his unnecessary serving it, speak perfect nonsense; as is manifest by the plain link of consequences which evidently follow out of the nice sense, 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 Criticism) if it signify reciprocal action or passion, it must signify 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 Schismatic; therefore it cuts the Schismatic in two, and either kills or mangles him, as the Critic pleases. See to what a pitiful case the Doctor's acuteness hath brought a poor Schismatic, from the too acquaint notation of the kill 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 showing one's skill in Grammar, or letting the world see they understand a little Greek and Hebrew, or interlarding their discourse with so many scraps of exotic languages to amuse the vulgar; and in the mean time very little, and very weakly to close with their adversary in the point in controversy 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 gleaned citations, and blind stories, sauced with some pretty expressions, sugared over with Scripture-phrase, and then dished up handsomely with the help of a learned distinction, will serve to make up several paragraphs; Paragraphs, Chapters; Chapters, a Book: jamque opus exegi, etc. 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 Schism is a voluntary recession from the Church: and might not plain sense have told us this without critically straining and spoiling a word to prove it from Grammar? For, what man in his wits could possibly imagine, Schism being such an horrid sin, that one might perhaps fall into it, whether he would or no, and so become a Schismatic 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 a whole leaf, and with most potent Arguments overthrows that which would fall of itself (like him that all-to-be-banged the dead Bear) not the least hair of an objection bristling itself 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 Schism; 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 Church's condemnation or punishment of the crime of Schism, as the judges 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 err, 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 yourself well. In the mean time what only 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 Governor's side: For surely, the order of the Politic 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 maybe's, than you are worsted: What will become of you when we come to demonstrate to you hereafter, that however in some private proofs of a particular fact, the Governors may be mistaken, yet in such public 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 Schismatics, 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. Only we desire you would grant us in recompense, what in all reason is due, That a voluntary continuance in a just Excommunication, makes the thus excommunicated Schismatics. Which part of the distinction being counterpoised to those others you mentioned, of actual continuance out of the Church, and unjust Excommunication, hurting no man, and most nearly concerning the Question, being objected by us to be your guilt, whereas the other you treat, are out of controversy 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 overslip that part of the distinction, which sounds dangerously, and is hard to be confuted, though the main of the Question only stands upon it; and mention only 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 alleged, tending only (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.  
Concerning Dr. Hammond's Plea of a Weak Conscience, not suffering him to subscribe to the Church's Doctrine against his present persuasion.  
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 Church's 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 than do it, the Doctor makes account he may remain out of Communion, and that lawfully too.  
This is the Doctor's assertion, which indeed 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 Doctor's 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 persuasion 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 humour possesses him) he would lay his Soul, Control him not (saith the Doctor) he is in an error, but yet governs himself at present according to Conscience, he may not lawfully subscribe, or ●eal a pardon, contrary to his present persuasion. 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●… persuasion. 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 persuasion. Neither will it avail you to Answer, that these were told by God's Law, that their act●… were unwarrantable, and therefore were culpable: For, it is easy 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 yourself unfortunate Pen has out of the Fathers described to be a venomous compound, swollen with the mixed poison of all sorts of Vices.  
The Reader will by this see, to what a pass this Doctor's Logic would bring the world, if his Position should take place, That no man should be obliged to, or punished for anything against his present persuasion, 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 persuasion, which a man is so fixed in, may either begin in the Understanding, or proceed from the Will: If in the Understanding, it must be only a perfect demonstration that can beget in it so firm an adherence; and then, being rational, it is not only 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 than the light of Reason itself 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 blind and lead astray the Understanding, by proposing false Motives for true ones. And therefore when the Will by deserved punishment is whipped 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 vapours had enwrapped her.  
You see then, Doctor, (which perhaps you never reflected on before,) A man may be obliged to retract a present persuasion, 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 judgement, as the cases of the forementioned Malefactors, your Clients, have, as I hope, by this time 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 Christ's Church, and renouncing the main support of all Religion▪ the Rule of Faith, (things in the conserving of which, the eternal salvation of mankind consists) be less deserving punishment in the offenders, or less worth taking notice of by the Governors of the Church, than the wrong of thirteen-pences halfpenny 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, only 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 judgement: Lastly, Our pretended making Communion impossible, will be found to be only a self-opinionated pride in you, and of all prides the most miserable and silly, 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 Schismatics, unless you can evidence, with most perfect demonstrations, that those things were Errors which the Church obliged you to subscribe to; that is, that the Church's doctrine was, or is erroneous, and consequently herself not infallible. This, if you evidence, I shall grant you have not only overthrown ours, but all Religion; not only acquitted yourself of Schism, but also quite taken away all possibility of being a Schismatic; since no Authority can with any face or conscience, oblige to a belief; of which herself is not certain.  
But, I doubt not, you make yourself 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 add, 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 penned the sacred Writ, and peached 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 God's Word, and genuine Scripture, without an Angel, Saint, or Christ's coming from Heaven, or the Doctor's 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 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 Church's 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 Friend's 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 yourselves. But take heed you bring not whimpering probable maybe'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 judgements 
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) than what easier condescension and deference to the judgement of Superiors can be imagined, then to submit one● private judgement, when he has only probability 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 judgement 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 err, she could need no reforming. So that your Preaching of Reformation is vain, your Faith vain; and by consequence yourselves Schismatics, and an Ace more.   

SECT. 4.  
Concerning the ground of Unity, groundlesness of Schism, and of Dr. Hammonds manner of arguing to clear himself of the later.  
ALl that is material in the Doctor's second Chapter, is summed up in these two heads, that the Church does ill in obliging men to subscribe against their present persuasion; 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 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 sergeant some small flourish of devotion, will quickly fade into Hypocrisy, when the sapless roots are plucked up from their rotten ground. The former of them hath been discovered in the former Section, to be worse than 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 only think it strange to infer otherwise, but as great an absurdity 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 bind them to the belief of it, if she herself 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, than 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 men's obligation, and also their greatest good to believe so qualified a Mistress. Whereas, on the other side, any other Congregation that professes herself fallible, that is, uncertain of the truth of her Doctrine, cannot without accusing herself of the greatest injustice and tyranny in the World, bind 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 myself 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 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 herself fallible, and so wanting all power to oblige to belief, would notwithstanding have others believe her, accounting the Puritans, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, and Independants, Schismatics if they do not; and dares enstyle herself 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 Brussels, in answer to Dr. Hammond, saith upon this place. By this (saith he) you may perceive much of his discourse to be not only superfluous and unnecessary, but contrary to himself; for he laboureth to persuade, That the Protestant may be certain of some truth, against which the Roman Catholic 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 show for his Crown, and much less any other person for any other thing) together with the persuasion 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 bias 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 Church's power to command belief, as she pretends no other; no time, no separation within memory of History, can justify 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 labour of this larger con●ute; and, being exactly short, might justly be styled Dr. Hammonds Iliads in a Nutshell; 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 Doctor's 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, than 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, etc. And so goes on with three or four Suppositions, all built upon that first general Supposition, That the Roman Catholic Church hath erred, or is not infallible. I commend 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 erred, 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 only desires in courtesy, that the main matter in controversy (out of which it was easy 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 smatterer in Logic, 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 Doctor's Logic: You and your first Reformers, are Schismatics (says the Catholic) 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 Catholic) 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!  
Yet Mr. Hammond hath involved another Error in the same passage more unpardonable (if possible) then the former, so fruitful is his Logic of inconsequent absurdities. For what man ever arrived to that height of mistake, as to endeavour to manifest his innocency by the voluntary confession of a crime, which implies the objected fault, and much more to boot; or to allege for his plea against the accusation of his adversary, that which more deeply condemns, and is objected to him as a far more heinous crime by the same adversary? Yet such is this Doctor's acuteness. He is accused by us of Schism, and lays for the ground of his excuse, That he acknowledges not our Church's infallibility, which is charged upon him, not only to be both Schism and Heresy, but as the very sink of all Infidelity. For what man of Reason, but stands in an hover disposition of mind to embrace any Religion, or rather Irreligion, nay even Turcism itself (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 Windmill Judgement; 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 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 selfsame, as if some discontented subject having first outlawed himself, by denying the Laws, and rejecting the Government of England, and afterwards becoming obnoxious to those Laws by Robbing, Murdering, etc. should endeavot to plead, Not guilty; by alleging, 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 persuasion, 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 Logic clears him: But, the Reader, and I am persuaded, wiser judgements 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 Church's Infallibility, the only 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 than those, which, if admitted, would prove all the Malefactors in the World innocent; and make it lawful, nay, an obligation in Conscience to dissolve the whole Fabric of the World's 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.  
Containing some Observations upon Mr. Hammonds third Chapter, of the Division of Schism.  
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 CHURCH OF ENGLAND, AGAINST THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE ROMANISTS; BY H. HAMMOND, D. D. So that now I remained 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, 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 imagine what commendations this Chapter and its Author doth deserve.  
Our Question is of Schism: In this Chapter he undertakes to show 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 than 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 Catholic 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 waste-paper, the Reader may please to take notice that the Schism we charge the Protestants with, is not of the people's 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 Forefathers, the first Reformers.  
First, of a Breach or Schism from the whole Catholic Church. This is without controversy the Schism of Schisms; and which in the first hearing of the word (Schism) objects itself 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 entitled, 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 people's Schism against a Deacon or Presbyter, and forget that which breaks from the whole body of the Universal Church. But the Doctor is more careful to preserve his own Copyhold then the Churches Free hold; for, according to his division and Doctrine in this Chapter, his Parishioners would be Schismatics for disobeying him, or a puny Deacon; but neither he, nor the Deacon Schismatics at all for disobeying the whole Church. And thus the Dr. has established his own Authority to be more inviolable than the Popes, and by this one Division, has quite conquered and got the upperhand of Antichrist.  
Secondly, What is become of General Councils all this while? Have not they as great an Authority as any private Patriarch, Primate, Archbishop, 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 heinous, grievous, and more worthy to be ranked amongst his fellow-Schisms then any of the others. Yet of this, in this Chapter where he expressly undertakes and professes 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 than the Authority of any Patriarch, Primate, Archbishop, Bishop, Dr. Hammond, or a Deacon? Surely all imagine so, but Dr. Hammond and his fellows; why is this overslipt 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 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 signify; 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 than any the Doctor here reckons up, to reject the Supreme 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 sense, 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 Patriarches▪ and Primates, etc. why is not the denying this Authority a greater Schism even in his own grounds, than a Schism against a Patriarch, Deacon? etc. For, the Authority of the Head rejected, what means possible remain to reconcile and unite the members. In omitting this 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 only omitted the three principal Schisms against Government, and those not only principal in themselves, but also solely importing the present Controversy; and only 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 only by a bare Schism, but also (which you here acknowledge to add 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, Archbishops, Primates, Patriarches; you tell us many things of the 
* C. 3. S. 15, 16, 17.  Seven Churches of Asia, etc. I will only 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▪ and omitting those Testimonies which are slightly objected here, and come over and over again afterwards.  
First than you affirm, That the Roman Patriarchy extended not itself 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 barbarous 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 Pope's Patriarchy be, what is this to his Papal Authority, since even we ourselves acknowledge him a Private Bishop of Rome, which yet prejudices not his Public Authority, as the Churches Universal Governor.  
Your Testimony alleged 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 Pope's 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 anciently above the Patriarches, 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 the Emperors, as being Lords of the world, were fittest to command the execution of it. But ere you can conclude hence against the Pope's Authority over the Church, you must first evince, That the Emperors (and the like may be said of Kings) did this without the Pope's signifying such their desires to them. Next, That, if they did it sometimes against the Pope's 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 only 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 allege them for: to wit, That the Emperors did it by their own proper Power.   

SECT. 7.  
Of Doctor Hammond's advance towards the Question, in the beginning of his Fourth Chapter.  
THe Doctor having so wisely and securely laid his Grounds, that is, Having omited all Grounds that might either prejudice his Cause, or touch the Question, advances at length towards the Controversy itself; 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 nonsense 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 myself 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, than it doth to the Emperor, who had derived the succession of his right 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 itself 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 Schismatics, 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 than 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 imagine that the Modern Protestants, who find the Pope outed from his Jurisdiction in England, are therefore excusable from their Forefathers 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 enjoined 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 encharged upon the Protestants, under the 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 lays out an ample Narration, how King Henry the Eighth, the Universities, and Parliament, not only 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, sealed, 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 Catholic Church should be so unreasonable, as not to grant and think herself ever to have taught, and the whole world ever to have believed a lie, rather than to judge so uncharitably, That a lustful and tyrannical King, with some number of his Subjects, partly out of flattery, partly out of fear, adhering to him (though these not a handful in comparison of the even-then-present Christian World) should say, seal and swear a falsehood: Especially, the cause of the breach being 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, than the other true, taking it upon their Corporal Oaths. Among those who died in defence of the Pope's 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 justify a Schismatic. 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 settled, all Controversies are silenced; when it is questioned, a gap is opened to all litigiousness. Necessity therefore, and evidence, must both be pleaded, ere any one can justly quarrel 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 than 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 Doctor's 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 imagined it a matter of Controversy, needing to be manifested, Whether or no King Henry the Eighth denied the Pope's Supremacy. The second is yet more ridiculous than the former; since not even the most impudent Heretic in the World ever had the face to deny, but that, if the Pope's Universal Authority was constituted by Christ, the consequence was inevitable, That it was both Schism and Heresy to reject and condemn 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 complete, after telling us, That we are to manifest them; he, out of his courtesy, 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 us a great favour, 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 mere knack to be-wonder Children and Ignorants.   

SECT. 7.  
Of Doctor Hammonds first Evidence against St. Peter's Universal Pastorship.  
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 devolved upon the Pope, his Successor, in the See of Rome. And now the long-expected time of the Doctor's Evidences is come: I told you he had a horrible design in Lavender 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 jointly request the ingenuous Reader, to bestow more attentive and deliberate diligence, in examining and weighing well this part of the Controversy, than 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 Doctor's proofs conclude and manifest themselves to be indeed, what they are pretended, that is, Evidences, than I will grant the truth on his side, and the controversy at an end. But if all the Evidence they bring, be only, that they are most evidently repugnant and most injurious to God's Word, to all Ancient Histories, and to themselves; that they are open Forgeries, and most absurd Deductions, shamefully abusing the Readers judgement, and even 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, God's Word, Antiquity, his Readers, and even to his own Conscience. But 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 jews, exclusively to the Uncircumcision, or Gentiles. Whence he infers, that St. Peter's authority, being restrained to the Jews only, 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 Christ's 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; only we add, 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 Dioceses 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 God's Spirit, have a more especial gift in converting some sorts of people, than others; and so applying more their industry, where they experienced more fruit of their Preaching, got 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. Peter should prove unlimited; and therefore lays for his ground, to conclude St. Peter Apostle of the Jews only, 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 noonday Evidences) out of two places in the Sacred Scripture, in explicating which also his chief talent-lies. These therefore we must endeavour 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 Doctor's future discourse, must be most unconfutable Evidences; and consequently must needs cost as much toil and labour in the answering.  
The first place he alleges 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 show, Whether of the two proposed (justus and Mathias) 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. to signify a lesser Province. Whereas first it is evident to common sense, that the lot of an Apostleship is nothing but the charge and office of an Apostle.  
Secondly, It is most manifestly shown 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 choose 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 Mathias; and, he was numbered 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 selfsame phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. (which the Doctor makes here stand for lesser Provinces) to express judas 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 dreamed that judas had a lesser Province assigned him: It is therefore point-blank 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. Mathias succeeded judas, a lesser Province; since he acknowledged before, That this division of Provinces was made after our Saviour's Ascension; and consequently judas, who was dead ere his Resurrection, had no such Province in which another might succeed him.  
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. Mathias 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 signify, St. Mathias his lesser Province. So that, all accounts made up concerning this place alleged, 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 sense, repugnant expressly 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.  
The Examination of Doctor Hammonds second Evidence, That the Apostles had distinct Provinces, so to prejudice St. Peter's Universal Pastorship.  
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 alleged and wonder. St. Peter speaks there of judas his prevaricating from the Apostleship, and going to Hell (which is there called 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 judas a Diocese amongst the Devils; and by his blasphemous interpretation would have St. Mathias succeed him. So blind 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 God's Word, have the face to appear in the Pulpit, to interpret those Sacred Oracles, after he hath been challenged and discovered to have so wilfully, and shamefully abused and corrupted them. And, alas, kind Readers, and dear Countrymen, how tender a sense 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 privilege is annexed to your first Reformers and Teachers, more than to Mr. Hammond;) these, I say, are they, to believe whose interpretations of Scripture you have left, the sense 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 Catholic 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 bosom 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 underpropt with the strongest supports which can possibly be imagined 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 in the Sacred Writ; the Conversion of all Nations, and ours amongst the rest; the Splendour and Reverence she observes in her Ceremonies, and Administering the Sacraments; the long-enjoyed 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 Country still enjoys: And lastly, all these, with many more, by a conspicuous visibleness to the eye, easy 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 man's 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 allege in counterpoise of so many weighty Motives, then only the bare fidelity and skilfulness of some few private men (such as is this Doctor) who pretend to be wiser in interpreting Scripture, than 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, as you tender your Souls endless good or misery, awake; and let these gross-absurdities, with which they impose upon you, rouse you from the Lethargy of such an easy credulity. Wisely bethink yourselves in time, how unsafe it is to rely on the bare Authority of their slippery interpretations, and relinquish the sense of the whole Catholic 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, aught 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 complained 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 preached to those of the Circumcision or Jews; and for the more particular fruit, which by God's 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 God's 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 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 particularised 〈◊〉 these two parts of the world; to wit, by 〈◊〉 other designation, than the more especial co-operation of God's 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. Peter 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. Peter's Universal Pastorship▪ That this Apostle was Apostles of the Circumcisi●… or jews, Exclusively to the Uncircumcision or Gentiles. Which Assertion is so shamelessly 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. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles, more than what this man puts in his of own head, I will be content to yield him the whole Controversy. And may not a Doctor of Divinity be ashamed 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) only says, That the Apostleship of the jews or Circumcision was committed to St. Peter; but ●hat it was of the jews only, 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 Doctor's ●ffertion, and can only 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 Noonday; half the eleventh Chap●… of the Acts being employed in a most ex●…ss Narration of St. Peter's 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 no authority to preach to the Gentiles, where as the Scripture expressly says, He was chose out of the rest, and particularly authorized so that end? Is this man fit to be accounted 〈◊〉 expounder of God's Word, who thus wilful 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●… alleged (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. Paul's manner or c●… to go into the jews 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 jews 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 jews, such and such things that foll●… there. So Acts 22. the whole Chapter al●… being a Sermon of his to the jews. Again 〈◊〉 24. 24. & 28. 23. where we find, that, 〈◊〉 at Rome, St. Paul preached to the jews, 〈◊〉 And now let the Reader judge if this be ●… most steeled impudence, thus point-blank, and diametrically opposite to the whole stream of Scripture, and only upon his bare word to impale and confine the Authority of the Apostles, to mutually-exclusive and contradistinct Jurisdictions; and all this, merely 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  
Some Consequences out of the Doctor's former Grounds, and his further Process in Evidencing.  
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 another's 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 jewish Christians were peculiarly St. Peter's Province; and (Section seven) the Gentile Christians, peculiarly St. Paul's, &c.  
Now if this Doctor will stand to these grounds 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 jews? You dare not say, That they were subordinate to St. Peter and St. Paul; that would endanger a kind of primacy in jurisdiction: Will you say then, they only 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 applied to St. Peter and St. Paul, you will have to signify peculiar and exclusively-proper Provinces, will not bear, applied to the rest of the Apostles, the sense of a promiscuous authority. It only 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 enjoined them, and getting them all leave to play. Nor hath he less obliged the Pope, if it proceeded from goodwill in him, and not from malice and ignorance; for indistributing between St. Peter and St. Paul the Diocese of the whole world, he hath at unawares confirmed the Pope, their Successor, to be the Universal Pastor of the whole Christian world; since it 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 Saviour's 
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. john.  
But me thinks I hear the Doctor's 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, carelessly to omit.  
And first he evidences, That St. Peter had no 
C. 4. S. 6.  Primacy at jerusalem where St. james sat; 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 chiefer in Authority than the rest of the Apostles, unless he did all things alone by himself. And how can it invalidate St. Peter's greater Authority that he took other two with him; since it is well known an Archbishop going to consecrate a Bishop, taketh 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 finds St. james 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 allowed 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. james 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. james 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. james gave the Sentence, and then quotes Acts 15. 19 I find only that St. james, after he had produced his Reasons, says, Wherefore my sentence is, etc. But the Doctor turns my sentence which can only signify his opinion or judgement 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. james his sentence in particular, citing for it, Ver. 22. of the same Chapter; but there is nothing there particularising St. james, but only that, Then (to wit, after St. Peter, St. Paul, Barnabas, and St. james, had spoken) it seemed good to the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church, etc. And upon what grounds can this demonstrative Doctor affirm, That the Rescript was grounded particularly upon St. james his sentence, and thence deduce his priority of dignity, when as it is manifest to any one that shall read the Chapter, that St. Peter's sentence was the same with St. james, in the main matter controverted; both concurring, that the Gentiles should be freed from the grievous burden of Circumcision: And although the abstaining from Fornication, things strangled, and blood, be found in St. james his sentence only, yet how can this argue a greater Authority in james? did St. Peter vote the contrary, and St. james 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. james 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 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 judgement 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. Peter's Primacy from St. james 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 piece 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 ourselves: And I will be bound, both at this time, and hereafter for the Doctor's innocency in this point, That he is never tedious, nor over large, either in Citations or Reasons, which tend directly to the thing in controversy; 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 sense; 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 chief of the Apostles; which is the question here treated; denied by us, nor contradicted at all by the place alleged. But he proceeds in his fundamental absurdity, that those two great Apostles wherever they came, the one constantly applied himself to the jews, 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, than (to omit, that it hath been shown contrary to Scripture) it makes nothing against us. But if it signify exclusively, or so, That neither had any Authority over the others Province, (in which sense only it can limit St. Peter's Universal Authority, which as he expresses Section six, is his aim) than 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 Testimonies, which obliges us to address ourselves with new vigour 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 jews, 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 behaviour 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. Peter's 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 potius oportere; nec despexit Paulum quod Ecclesiae prius persecutor fuisset sed consilium veritatis admisit, etc. 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 been a persecutor of the Church, but admitted the council of Truth. Thus that ancient, learned and holy Father St. Cyprian; yet Mr. Hammond hath certainty of the contrary.   

SECT. 10.  
The Examination of ten dumb Testimonies, which Dr. Hammond brings to plead for him.  
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 Doctor's purpose; for the founding the Antiochians Church and teaching them, might have been done by the promiscuous endeavours 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 jewish part by one, and the Gentile by the other. Was ever such 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 blind Id est, adds 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 Doctor's apprehension they are both of them most absolute EVIDENCES, because it is most evident, he says them both without either Authority or Reason.  
He labours in the next place to found a distinction 
Ibid.  of the jewish 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 grossly 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 alleged manifests) did they any otherwise withdraw from them, tha● in refusing only 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 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 jewish Church, for withdrawing from all Communion with the Gentiles, Schismatical; and blessed St. Peter himself, a Schismatic, nay, a ringleader of Schismatics: 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 sat Bishops of Antioch, one succeeding St. Peter, the other St. Paul, one in the jewish, the other in the Gentile Congregation. Whereas the place alleged in the Author (which I will put down, because he slubberingly omits it) is only 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 only their Ordination by the Apostles; but saith nothing of their sitting together, nor succeeding the Apostles; much less talks of the distinction of the jewish or Gentile Congregation; lest of all, of any mutual Exclusiveness of St. Peter and St. Paul's Jurisdiction there; but all these, (which are indeed all that is to the purpose) are either voluntarily added by the Doctor, or groundlessly 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 alleged here out of Eusebius and Origen, calling Ignatius the second, and out of St. jerom, calling him the third, make much against the sitting of two together: Neither will he find St. Paul was ever accounted a Parcel-Bishop in Antioch with St. Peter, that he should have a properly-called 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 honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the hand of that great Apostle St. Peter, where the Doctor leaves out the word Great, jest 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 judge by these Testimonies, that Great St. Peter ordained Ignatius also, rather than Euodius only; so as the Doctor is far from gaining, nay even comes off with no small loss from his own Testimonies, notwithstanding the faithful endeavours 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 than I) canst thou discern any the least word in any of these six Testimonies, which even seems afar off to limit St. Peter's authority to the Jews, and St. Paul's 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, etc. Do they ●ound any distinction or exclusiveness of Jurisdiction? When thou hast well examined thi●; next, please to consider that to evidence by Testimonies, cannot be done otherwise than by expressing the thing to be evidenced: Which thing in our present case, being the restriction, limitation, exception, and exclusion of St. Peter's jurisdiction (which, as given to our Saviour, to him, and the other Apostles, was, without controversy, Universal) this cannot be expressed, nor consequently evidenced by Testimonies, otherwise then by restrictive, limitative, exceptive, and exclusive terms; such as are Only, solely, alone, to none else, etc. This once understood and applied to the present occasion, and the Doctor's manner of proceeding, whosoever thou art that readest this Answer, whether thou beest Catholic, 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 expressly 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 men's 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-discovered trick of his fellows; nor by criticising, his former unsuccessful art; but by pinning a Paper of his own forging to the Testimony alleged, and gulling the Reader to his face, that the Author says it. So as the device is the same, only the method altered; for the said necessary Paper-which he used to pin behind 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 jews, and St. Paul of Gentiles. (Hold Doctor, the Testimonies should have told us that; why do you forestall 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 strawed 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, &c. 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 jews, the other of Gentiles, with exclusion of St. Paul's authority over St. Peter's, and St. 
C. 4. S. 7. C. 4. S. 5.  Peter's over St. Paul's Congregation: Even SO St. Irenaeus says, That they built the Church there; St. Epiphanius, That they were Apostles and Bishops there, etc. The Reader may perceive the fitness of the rest, by applying them at his leisure. Only, 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 testify the quite contrary, and a promiscuous Jurisdiction over the Gentiles, saying expressly, 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:  
The Examination of Dr. Hammonds Irrefragable Evidence, and other silent Testimonies produced by him.  
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. Paul's Jurisdiction. The Testimony is out of Matthew Paris, which I will transcribe word by word, together with the Doctor's 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 only account (saith the Doctor) given for St. Paul's having the nobler place, Quia, etc. because he believed in Christ, without seeing him. (Here on Earth) adds 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 God's sake, Reader, tell me what canst thou discern here of St. Peter's being 
C. 4. S. 5.  Apostle of the jews only, and exclusively to the Gentiles, which may deserve it should be called an IRREFRAGABLE EVIDENCE.  
My eyes are dazzled, it seems, with striving to see a thing at such an unproportionable distance; for I can espy 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-eyed 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. Peter to the jews, St. Paul's to the Gentiles; which none living could see without his coloured and insincere spectacles, to wit, blackest hatred and rancour 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 Pope's 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 only 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 Pope's Seal, is there any the least expression of St. Peter's being only the Apostle of the Circumcision, save in his own words only; 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, and totally repugnant they are to Scripture, hath already been shown. Nor are they less dissonant in this very place to Sacred Writ; for neither doth the Scripture only set down Saint Peter, as Apostle of the Circumcision, but James and John also. Gal. 2. 9 Nor is St. Peter any where expressed as Apostle of only the Circumcision, but expressly particularised the contrary, as hath been manifested out of Acts the fifteenth and seventh. So as that ONLY is your own forgery pined 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 jews only; The only proof of it is your own unquestionable certainty of it expressed here, that of 
C. 4. S. 10.  his being at Rome you make no question; So that your only 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 show me the least syllable, either in Scripture or your other Testimonies, expressly and without the help of your ID ESTS, and scruing deductions, restraining St. Peter's Jurisdiction to the jews only, and exclusively to the Gentiles, I will yield you the Laurel, and quit the Controversy.  
His twelfth Testimony (for his IRREFRAGABLE 
Ibid.  EVIDENCE from the Pope's 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 Doctor most fitly applies to the Gentiles of th● City, the jews having solemnly (saith he) departe●… from him, Vers. 29. But looking into the Te●… I find 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 only 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 persuaded them to believe in Christ. Yet the Doctor upon authority only of the word solemnly, which was of his own coining, thinks he hath evidenced that St. Paul at Rome treated with none but Gentiles; the Text itself not admitting so much as a probability of it. But all is good Corn that the Doctor's Mill grinds.  
His fourteenth Testimony is out of St. Ignatius; I will first cite the words as I find them in the Author, in the place quoted by him, and then let you hear the Doctor's 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 Ministry; 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 entreat 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 fetched construction, can be said to evidence, That St. Peter was only over the jews, and St. Paul over the Gentiles. Here to an ordinary eye, nothing seems to be said, but only 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 Trall. we read of Linus and Clement, that one was St. Paul's, the other St. Peter's Deacon, both which▪ afterwards succeeded them in the Episcopal Chair; Linus being constituted Bishop of the Gentile, Clement of the jewish Christians there. And there he stops. Where all that any way makes to the purpose, is subjoined by the Doctor out of his own head. There is no dealing with such a terrible adversary; who though he should choose 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 only 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 dreamt on before; and this only (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 only upon the slippery sand of his own saying, already proved to be false, I will forbear to vex him, or trouble myself unnecessarily by vouchsafing 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 jewish and Gentile Congregations was first made, and not in St. Peter. So that the Doctor first, upon his own giddy imagination, fancied them distinct, and now (because he 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, Jerome, etc. no man could ever understand the business aright, till this happy age in which Dr. Hammond was born; whose Glow-worm fancy evidenced more than 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 Prescript. c. 32. Epiph. Haer. 27. Ruffin. Praef. lib. Praecognit.  the fourth, and yet was ordained by St. Peter) refused the Office till the successive death of Linus and Cletus: to which solution recur S. Epiphanius, Ruffinus, etc. but none ever dreamed 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 jewish after St. Peter; which had been very obvious to those that lived so near those times; but the reason why they did not, is evident, because they never dreamed of a distinction of jewish 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 endeavours of the Apostles (as far as they could without scandalising either part) tended to reduce both the jews and Gentiles to Unity and Uniformity in one Church, and to unite them in him whom they taught and preached to be the Head▪ Cornerstone Christ jesus, in whom is no distinction of jews 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 only with an authentic 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 Christ's life time, even before St. Peter himself. This he proves plainly (he says) from his style of beloved Disciple, and leaning on Christ's breast at Supper. As if, because jacob loved joseph more than all his other Brethren, and therefore out of particular favour might have let him lean on his breast at Supper, it must needs mean plainly, that young joseph was the highest of his Brethren in dignity, had due to him the birthright and inheritance, etc. And who sees not, that the posture of leaning on Christ's breast at Supper, was not an orderly and ordinary manner of sitting, but only 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 Christ's breast, signifies the first place next to Christ, as being in Abraham's 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 Abraham's bosom, was above all the Patriarches and Prophets except Abraham; as also, that none was in Abraham's bosom except Lazarus only; since there can be no more NEXTS but one. But it is no wonder to see the Doctor trip now, who hath stumbled, nay fallen 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. john's peculiar Province; in the next, that the Gentiles there were St. Paul's; and when he hath done, destroys 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 join 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 Doctor's ground● make the Jurisdictions of the Apostles exclusive to one 
C▪ 4. S▪ 5.  another, and this place tells us, that the whole entire Nation of Asia was under St. Paul, it must follow out of his doctrine of Exclusive jurisdiction, that poor St. john had not so much as the place of a Parish-Priest allowed 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 only, by a Testimony which entitles him to the whole entire Nation?   

SECT. 12.  
Another dumb show of Dr. Hammonds Testimonies, to prove St. Peter over the jews only.  
AFter such invincible Testimonies alleged▪ 
C. 4. S. 16.  the Doctor begins to triumph, and tells us, That we cannot say any thing in any degree probable for St. Peter's Universal Pastorship over the Churches in the Lydian Asia. And the reason he gives, is because they were so early famous, as that Christ honoured them with an Epistle in the Revelations. It must be a wonderful acuteness in Logic, 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 Saviour's choosing twelve Apostles, and Simon Peter the first? if not, their earliness will not hurt us, nor help you.  
His next two demands concerning St. john's and St. Paul's Jurisdiction there, are already answered 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 Only 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 find it thus. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that thou mayst know, how thou oughtest to behave thyself 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, only 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 ONLY TO HIMSELF, etc. Where are all those quarrelling and exceptive terms? But the Doctor seems willing not only to limit the Apostles Jurisdictions, but also to set them together by the ears; as if they were jealous, that their fellow Apostles, like usurping competitors, would intrude into their right, and therefore give express charge to debar their ambition from putting their Sickl● into another man's Harvest. Good Mr. Hammond, let us have no more of these insincere dealings. Let the restrictive and exclusive words, which only 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 Controversy, 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 alleging 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 yield him, that each Apostle had an Apostolical Commission over the whole world; and yet fear no prejudice should hence arise to St. Peter's 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 jews only, by patching those old garments of ancient Testimonies with the new pieces of his self-woven Additions.  
This Concession of ours, and mistake of his; shows the next Paragraph, which harps upon the same string, to wit, That St. Paul constituted 
C. 4. S. 17.  Titus Primate in Crect, 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 baptised 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 Britain's, 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 than St. Peter's line, as he was Apostle of the Circumcision, ID EST, (saith he) to the jews 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 Dioceses of jews in England (since there must be several Dioceses, 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 only 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, judas 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, pined before and behind 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 jews only, 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 Heretics, 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. Peter's authority? This Testimony seems also something enigmatical, and requires Lynxe's eyes, or the Doctor's far-seeing and all-penetrating Optic to look through the thick rind 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 Heretics and Schismatics are said to depart, IS SAID to have been founded EQUALLY in each of them, in John, James, and Andrew as well as in St. Peter. The word where, and is said, would almost persuade 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 only a Negative and non-concluding 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 jointly with his Apostles, as those whose joint-communion Heretics leave. So as if the mentioning of several persons indifferently together without distinction of superiority, argue an equality in their Authorities, the Doctor's Logic may with the same reason infer, That Christ and his Apostles were independent of one another; that the unity from which Schismatics depart is founded EQUALLY in them, in John, James, Andrew, AS WELL as Christ, etc.  
And this may serve for a sample of the Doctor's 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 expressly undone all his former work, even beyond the help of an ID EST; that is, beyond all hopes of remedy. For whereas he had bend all his endeavours to prove, that some Apostles had the jews only for their Province, and had more especially insisted for nine whole Paragraphs together, in limiting St. Peter's authority to the jews, no body knows where; as likewise St. james his to the jews in judea, Section six, and St. john's to the jews of Asia, Section fourteen.  
This Testimony by himself here alleged, expressly manifests a jurisdiction over the Gentiles, in all the before-limited Apostles; nay, even in all the rest▪ The words are these, as himself citys them. In ipsâ jerusalem 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 jerusalem, John at Ephesus, Andrew and the rest of the Apostles throughout all Asia, Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the GENTILES, etc. Where, though the Doctor would blind 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, etc. 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 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 shown to be but feeble props to support his partition-wall of Schism, which he is about repairing, and daubing, or plastering over; so now by an unluckily-lavish Testimony of St. Prospers, which told more than 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.  
Doctor Hammonds second General Evidence against St. Peter's Supremacy, from the Donation of the Keys, found to be obscurer than the former.  
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 Doctor's 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 midway between the past and following proofs, he may at once, and with a readier glance of his judgement, 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, than that Argument cannot in true Reason be styled an EVIDENCE. But now a proof from Authority is then called an Evidence, when both the Testimony itself is authentic beyond dispute, and also the words alleged 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 Controversy) 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 Doctor's 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 the Keys given to him in particular, he brings not one express proof for the Negative, but goes about only to solve our Testimonies for the Affirmative; which is not to produce Evidences of his own, but to endeavour 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 another's 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 only show by this means, that such or such Arguments do not conclude, but not that the thing itself 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, john 21. 15, 16, 17.  
Thirdly, We charge him with manifest calumniating, in saying, We pretend this Donation of the Keys, as a peculiarity, and enclosure of St. Peter, and impugning it accordingly; whereas he cannot be ignorant, that the Catholic Church holds no such thing, but that each Apostle enjoyed an Universal Commission of Jurisdiction, and Power to bind and lose; which yet debars not St. Peter from being the Head of them, and having an especial Authority or Primacy. These things premised, to show the Doctor's false manner of proceeding, we buckle close to the Question.  
The first place which the Doctor citys, as alleged 
C. 4. S. 20.  by us for the particular Donation of the Keys to St. Peter in particular, is Matth. 16. 19 I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind 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, john 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 enclosure of St. Peter, so that he only, and not the others, had power to bind and lose, than 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 only ground of inferring his Conclusion, and solving the objected Testimony.  
All therefore that we intent to deduce out of this place in St. Matthew, is, That (whether those words▪ be the Instrument of Christ's 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 james, john, Philip, etc. 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 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 Tutor 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, etc. 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. Peter's 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 only to all the Apostles in general, but also to St. Peter in particular; it is most consonant to reason, and worthy our Saviour, not only 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 find any performance in particular, but wholly omits it (and indeed it was dangerous, for it was our best and most express Testimony) and instead of it, produces only a performance to them all in general. Whereas john 21. 15, 16, 17. he might have seen it expressly recommended and encharged upon St. Peter particularly and by name once, twice, thrice; with as many repetitions of his name particularising him over and over Feed my Lambs; Feed my sheep, feed my sheep. And lest 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 than 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 Catholic Church, according to her never-erring rule of Faith, give us an infallible certainty, that they express a Primacy in St. Peter, whatever the Doctor's private judgement 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 common only: 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 than 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 Christ's 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 Christ's power thus promised, he should be fully able to act himself, without the conjunction of any other; and that what he thus did (clavae 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, etc. 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 Keys; 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 Christ's house. This Office therefore must be particularly applied to St. Peter; and seeing those words were no otherwise particularly applied to St. Peter, then by our Saviour's 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 particularising is a kind of exception from an universality or community, and the universality or community before whom our Saviour spoke it, and from whom any kind of exception could be imagined to be there made, was the other Apostles, it follows, That St. Peter was particularised out of that community for the office of Steward in Christ's house.  
Again, since the Keys are the token (as the Doctor proves) of the Ecclesiastical Oeconomy and Stewardship in Christ's house, and, however we read that the effect of the Keys, that is, power of binding and losing, was given to others, yet it is no where expressed in Scripture, that the Keys themselves, the badge of that Office, were given to the rest even in common, (for it's 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 only 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 only are the badge of that Function to any of the rest.  
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 Christ's house, it follows, the Apostles being a part of Christ's house, or his Church, that Saint Peter was constituted Ecclesiastical Steward over them.  
Fourthly, The Doctor's 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 intent to deduce hence a power in all the rest of the Apostles, and all other Prelates, superior to their Assemblies or Consistories, is something screwed and far-fetched; 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 Christ's house, all that follows in the Doctor (though otherwise meant) runs on very currently, and upon his grounds; to wit, That whatsoever St. Peter acted by virtue of Christ's power thus promised, he should be fully able to act himself without the conjunction of any other, and that what he thus did (clavae non errante) no one or more men on Earth could rescind without him. Thus hath Doctor Hammond, while he disputes against his Brother Presbyters, fallen into a sudden fit of Popery, and at unawares laid grounds for a greater Authority in the Pope, than many Papists will grant him. But it is only a fit; he will recover, I doubt not speedily, as soon he begins to combat us afresh.  
But now (as I said) the Scene is changed; 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 shamelessly and expressly against Scripture, alleged 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 find it only spoken in common, and general to all the Apostles; not a word particularising 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 wielding 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 Saviour's coming to judgement 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 Judgement come in the Apostles time, turned judge into preside; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Throne, or judgement seat into Cathedra, an Episcepal Chair or See.  
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 profane, 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, than 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 Doctor's 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. Peter's 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 him. This Reason then, you see, is so shallow, that even a child 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 divers 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 mind of a story of a Ploughman, 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 laughed 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 allege 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 though Keys, the continual successions of Bishops flows; that the Church is built upon the Bishops, etc. We allow of to a tittle, and charge it upon you, at either a pitiful ignorance, or a malicious calumny, to pretend by objecting those, that we build not the Church upon Bishops in the plural, nor allow any authority to them, but to the Pope only; whereas you cannot but know how great Authority we give to Councils (consisting of Bishops) insomuch, as it is a School-dispute 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, than the Church is built most chiefly, and especially on St. Peter and his Successors, which is all we Catholics say; and not on them only; 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 only 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. Peter's 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 mere plurality, he infers an equality of Authority. By all this, the Doctor says it is evident again, That the Power which Christ's Commission instated on St. Peter, was in like manner entrusted to every other single Apostle, as well as to him, etc. 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, etc. but what he adds himself: Though these be the only 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 pumped 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 choose to evacuate; but that which is drawn from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and how will he evacuate it, but first from Homer's 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 only puts down the bare word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) seems to be this, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore signifies vulgarly a Stone, and in Homer's Iliads is applied to denote an huge loggerly Stone like a Millstone (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:) Next, this Stone by the Scripture must needs be a foundation Stone; and there being Twelve foundation-stones named in the Apocalypse, 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 only and above the rest) styled Foundation-stones; it is consequent hence, that all were equal. Where first the Argument is again only Negative, to wit, that no distinction is there put, therefore there was none: To make which inference good, he must first show that, if there were any distinction, it must necessarily be expressed upon all occasions. Next, it is a most pitiful piece of reason to persuade the Reader from only 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, etc. given to each of them, that all were equal. Again, the Doctor hath quite overthrown his cause by arguing, That not only 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 only St. Peter having the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it follows in the Doctor's grounds, That he only, 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 signify he was a Rock, or (as the Doctor will have it) a Foundation-stone, and every Apostle being according 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 than the rest. For the richness in things of this nature, being more considerable, and more enhancing their value, than the bulk and quantity; it follows▪ That the greater preciousness and lustre which manifests itself in one above another, may better claim a signification, That that Apostle, who is represented by it, had an authority above the rest, than 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 mind; such, as if it were on the Doctor's side, and he had the managing of it, I know he would make it a MOST IRREFRAGABLE, and UNQUESTIONABLE EVIDENCE: And, though Catholics▪ 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 Doctor's talon in evidencing) yet because perhaps he may fancy it stronger than twenty demonstrations, and so it may come to do him much good, he shall have it very willingly. Amongst these twelve precious Foundation-stones, denoting the twelve Apostles, the Doctor will not deny the first to signify St. Peter, to whom, he and his fellows, are content 
C. 8. S. 5.  at least, to grant from our Saviour's words a priority of Order. This first foundation then shadowing to us St. Peter, is here Chap. 21. 19 said to be a jasper; the selfsame 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 only having the same lustre with our Saviour, is like him in representation, and so only 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 kind of proof, as he would call an Evidence.  
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. Peter's 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-employed in perusing the confutation of so weak a Writer.    

The Second Part.  
Comprehending the Answers of the Fifth, six, and Seventh Chapters.  

SECT. 1.  
Of the pretended Primogeniture of Antioch, and the Doctors mistake of the Council of Chalcedon.  
THis Champion of Schism having (as he thought) impaled the Universal Jurisdiction of St. Peter to the dispersed jews only; 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 Rome's succeeding Saint Peter, examined; as he did the foregoing Chapter, The pretended Evidences of the Romanists, etc. Where, first, he would persuade many good honest Readers, that he had urged our Evidences home, and afterwards salved them; whereas indeed he only puts down a word or two of our bare tenet, and that not even as we explicate it, much less as we evidence it.  
Secondly, He would seem to intimate again, that, it belongs to us to evidence; Let the Doctor know, the Church's Evidence is her long-and-quietly enjoyed 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 outlawed 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 says only, 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 dashed in pieces by my Answer to his former Chapter, no Consequence can be built upon it, till he have repaired his groundwork 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. Peter's jurisdiction was limited to the jews only, which only was the thing 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 only is there the thing in question,) I will quit the field, and yield, though not my cause, yet my own particular conquered. But if he have not, what a vanity is it to brag, when he had said nothing at all to the Controversy, that he hath said all that is necessary, nay, even supererogated, and said more than needs.  
In this second Paragraph, the Doctor would evidence, That the Privileges attending St. Peter's succession, belong rather to the Bishop of Antioch, then of Rome. And this he endeavours by ask 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 jewish 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 jewish believers only, 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 yourself with, but what you added of your own. That he left a Successor Bishop there. If you mean such an improperly called 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 Peter's authority, so as St. Peter should divest himself of his Primacy, and give it him, not carrying it along with him to Rome, I deny he left there any such kind 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. Peter's 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 showed 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 divers qualities of dignity: First, his particular care of that Church, as private Bishop in that See: Secondly, his public 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 Bishopric; but did not divest 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 living; so that only 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 Doctor's 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 only constituted there a Successor to himself in the dignity which he then stripped himself of, that is, of the private charge of that Church; which being only an ordinary office, and no particularity resulting from St. Peter's personal authority; it had consequently from the force of such a substitute instalment, nothing to elevate it beyond the pitch of an ordinary Bishopric; 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 of the Council of Chalcedon; citing a Canon thereof, That the See of Constantinople shall have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, equal privileges, 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 privileges; and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Fathers at Constantinople being moved with the same Reasons, had rightly judged, That now the same privileges 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 kind of privileges, 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 only denotes a similitude or likeness.  
Thirdly, I must chide Mr. Doctor, (and with very good reason too) for Englishing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in ALL Ecclesiastic 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 itself, which no other word there alleged, can in any way signify. But the Doctor's 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 privileges, which might have accrued to some Church, by the residence of the supreme Secular power there. I see no necessity why the Pope's 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 expressly pretended to come from Christ's 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, than 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 signify 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 only, and this he will grant she retained notwithstanding these equal privileges arrogated to Constantinople, if then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges, may be supposed to be given to another, Rome's precedency and priority in order remaining untouched; why should we think, or indeed, how can we think that that word meant the Primacy, or that this was concerned in the Decree, being much higher than the former; since this was sacred, the other complementary; this ever held as not possible to come otherwise then from Christ's especial donation, whereas that might have probably proceeded from Ecclesiastical Constitution.  
Seventhly, The Doctor (only proceeding upon a whimsy born and bred in his own brain) tells us, pag. 99 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Patriarchate, and the pomps attending it, and that Canstantinople wanted only 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 dropped from the Pen of some petty Writer, and never fetched it from the Fountains of ancient History itself: 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 itself, 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 only those of the party of Constantinople left to 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 Pope's 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 itself, not numbered 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 bastard-issue, and pined 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 judgement, 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-senced 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 underpropping your Testimony, if you had been better employed in the mean time; but I find the whole fifth Paragraph, in which you wave it, from the beginning to the end, made up only 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, etc. 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, than he plainly begs the Question which hangs yet in dispute; and then, upon this supposition, I will grant it is not only 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 Doctor's words may be objected as well to any Governor, or any man living, as to the Pope; and it is not strange dealing, 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 only from the Patriarch of Antioch, but from all others whomsoever was contested then, as from the Apostles times, etc. Thus the Doctor desirous to make the Reader believe that Cyprus had no kind of Dependency on any one whomsoever. Though the Testimony itself 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 ordained or conferred the grace of Ordination upon that Island, nor any other. The Testimony speaks only, 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 inflame the reckoning.  
But the Council exempted Cyprus from the peculiar subjection to a private Patriarch in particular: True, but is there any thing expressed there, That either Cyprus or the Patriarch of Antioch himself, were exempted from the Obedience or Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, as Public Head of the Church, or was the Pope's Primacy there called in question. This should have been expressed 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 I'll of Cyprus might well have been exempted from the obedience of any particular Patriarch, and yet both it, and the Patriarches 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 another's 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 than stands thus.  
The Canon of Ephesus constitutes, That n●… Bishop shall encroach upon another's Province, o●… usurp a power, where from the Apostles time h●… had not enjoyed it: But the Pope (must Dr. Hammond subsume) hath encroacht upon another's Province, and usurped 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 child 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, etc. Yet this (being all that belongs to him to prove) he either supposes as a first principle, though it be the only thing in controversy, 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 justinian made equal in privileges to the Bishop of justiniana 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 jurisdiction, the supreme Priesthood, supreme Dignity. These words sound high, and (as the Doctor thinks) terribly to us: But first he must consider, that justinian's 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 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 justiniana prima; nor would Pope Vigilius have consecrated him Bishop (as the Doctor shufflingly grants he did) upon these terms; neither was it justinian's pretence, who only meant to exempt him from the Jurisdictions of them, whose Patriarchates heretofore extended to that Province.  
But let us come to the Testimony itself; either the words, All Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, supreme Priesthood, and supreme Honour, must mean a supremacy over the whole Church, or in his own particular Diocese. If over the whole Church. justinian constituted him Pope; which no man in his wits will say, If over his own Diocese only, 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 mouse-eaten 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 shows, 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 an invisible doctrine. But this I know, it was pat for the Doctor's Logic, 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 jerusalem, which was only 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 Patriarches, or any out of the Patriarchate of the West was.  
But our kind Doctor is so freehearted, 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 justinian, c. 3. and the sense of it is, That he should be in all that Diocese, the Pope's Legate, which now we call to be Legatus Natus; and in Catholic times, was a thing annexed to the Bishopric of Canterbury: Wherein two things are clear, one, that his Diocese remained notwithstanding all these privileges, subject to the Pope; and that to magnify his dignity, this was necessary to make him the Pope's Delegate, as it was also divers times used to the very Patriarches; to whose dignity all these privileges did not elevate justiniana prima, though they exempted it from them. justinian's words are, that in all that Diocese 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 Pope's substitute. And I pray (good Doctor) where did you read the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explicated for honour or dignity? And in what History do you find such a dignity, as an Apostolical Seat in common? What dignity had Ephesus for St. johus sitting in it, that the like should be given to justiniana?  
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 Doctor's process of nullity: For since Nicephorus speaks not of the City only 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 itself much farther.  
The Doctor was not so blind, 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, 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 signify 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 Pope's consenting to this erection, and so absolutely evacuates the Doctor's Argument. The other is, That he did not only consecrate him, but give him a Pall, which act was a sign of Superiority, and a kind of Benediction, and at least an Honour, 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 privilege to consecrate the Pope, yet the Pope is not 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 Patriarches 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 only by making it a Primates, or chief Metropolitans See; and that Carthages being the prime Metropolis of afric, is expressed by having the same privileges with Prima justiniana. Can any man think he intendeth other then to mock his Auditory? For as far as I understand, these words signify, that the Emperor said only, Be thou a chief Metropolis; and in so saying, gave all these Privileges: Whereas all the Doctor's labour hitherto, and the Texts by him cited, wherein every privilege is set down so particularly, make it manifest, there were none or not eminent examples of any such Cities or Bishoprics; and therefore so many particularities were necessary to be expressed, and it be made an example to others: Yet upon this relieth the Doctor's main evidence, and demonstration. Though, if you will believe him▪ The conclusion of itself is most certain, and might otherwise be testified by innumerable Evidences; which we ought to suppose the Doctor omits for brevity's 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church, there must be a Catholic 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 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 Heretics. Therefore he had reason to enlarge himself no farther, but conclude with the Authority of his Convocation, An. 1537. To which, I confess myself unable to answer; for it is a pregnant and unavoidable Testimony: Only I may remember our old English Proverb, Ask my fellow, whether I am a Thief; or ask Caiphas, whether pilate's 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, mere 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.  
A Discovery of Dr. Hammonds Fundamental Error, which runs through this Chapter, and his ingratitude for our Country's Conversion.  
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 ROME'S 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 Catholic Author ever affirmed, the Pope is beholden to his Ancestors care in bringing England to Christ's Faith, for his supreme jurisdiction there; or that his title of Primacy had not been equal in this Country, in case it had happened Constantinople or Alexandria had sent to convert it? We will therefore free the Doctor from any obligation of Subjection to the Pope's Primacy, which he causelessly 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 Devil's 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 only 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 only out of a few obscure and unauthentick sayings, to disacknowledge your highest obligation to her; in stead of grateful courtesy, to slight, and contemn her; to naturalise 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 all the knowledge you have of Christ, or his holy Word:) Last, To revile that Church, which (till you broke from her) had ever the most sacred title of Christ's only Spouse, with your scolding Sermon-invectives (grateful elegancies to your applauding hearers) of Idolatrous, Antichristian, Strumpet, Whore of Babylon, and all the venomous spiteful expressions, that ever were vomited from a malice-imposthumed heart: These things, I say, are they which brand you beyond infamy in the judgement of prudent men, and double Die the dark-coloured sin of Schism, with the deepest tincture of the blackest ingratitude. Of this ingratitude, Master Doctor, clear yourselves, 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 owe us, upon only 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 Pope's Primacy in this Island, is either from the Donation of Christ, or Conversion by Austin the Monk: If the latter, than 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, etc. This is the sum of his Dilemma.  
In answer to which, I confess indeed, the latter title is, A fallacious pretence, A NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA; but the fallacy is on the Doctor's side, who feigns us to pretend what we never thought on; to wit, That the Pope's 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 itself, 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 labour 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, birthright, and a formerly-given judgement) for the same thing? Or, what more unreasonable then to affirm, That jacob 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, than its fellows, That the title of descent is exclusive to that of conquest; since the titles of Donation 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 only 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 Doctor's 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 Neighbours; 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 acknowledgement, to prove very unmannerly and uncivilly, no thanks due.  
As for the first, he tells us, That this Island 
C. ●. S. 4.  was converted to the Faith of Christ, long before Augustine's Preaching to the Saxons; citing many Authors for it. Where if by the word Island, he mean the Islanders, as I suppose he must; I would then ask him, (though the former Islanders 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 Inhabitants, the Britain's, being driven by them into Wales; then what a perverseness 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 Pope's fatherly care, first converted to Christ's Faith? and what a pitiful shift it is, to show a willingness to put it off by quibbling in the words, this Island; as if they did not signify these Islanders, or the Islanders of the same race; but these Trees, Woods, and Mountains.  
The next page goes on very currently, and without any rub, proving, That the formerlyplanted Faith of Christ, in this Island, 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. David's 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 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 than once the Doctor hath bobbed us with this: Or is it in these words, Nullâ penitus, etc. 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 (expressed 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 Pope's 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 Doctor's purpose; but may well bear the interpretation of the Bishop of St. David's 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 Britain's was so extreme against the Saxons, at St. Augustine's coming; th● apprehension of their tyrannous usurping their Country, and driving them out of their own being, then flagrant and fresh in their memories, That they refused to join with St▪ Austin for the salvation of their Souls. And 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 imagine, seeing the Britain's 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 Pope's Authority, but that it was the profession of the then Catholic 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 sense of the whole Catholic Church.  
Yet I have not done with this story of the Abbot thus; I allege moreover, that it is either absolutely fabulous, 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, etc. 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 Bishopric at that time; it being translated in King Arthur's days▪ which was fifty years before this, from Caerusk to St. David's, 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 find this new piece of Antiquity irrecoverably confuted.  
What follows in the sixth Paragraph, is only a conclusion out of what he hath said, That the whole Island is not Schismatical, because St. Augustine converted not the whole. Where first he only proves the Welshmen no Schismatics, but still leaves himself and his Fellow-Englishmen (whom he ought to have cleared first) in the suds. Nay, though the Britain's were not then Schismatics 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. 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 Christ's own mouth: However, the former may render the rupture more enormous, seeing that part of Christ's Seamless-coat was close knit to the whole, by such a near and firm obligation.   

SECT. 4.  
His continuance of the same Fundamental Error, and some mistaking Proofs, That Kings can erect Patriarchates.  
BY this time the Doctor, through God's 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 Island, 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 Pope's 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 sat? Good Mr. Doctor inform us what you intent by the Chair, where Saint Paul sat: Whether in the Church of Antioch, or Rome, or the like, say you.  
But first, it is merely a fiction that St. Paul ever sat in any Chair, or was fixed Bishop in any place, but at Rome only with St. Peter▪ and to demand whether all Countries converted by him, aught to be subject to his Successor there (that is, to the Pope, who succeeded both him, and St. Peter) is only 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; only, 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 Doctor's former large Testimony from the monosyllable COME, will manifest) than 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 St. Peter's Jurisdiction; for which, Negative proofs are insufficient, or indeed for any thing else. Yet the Doctor's 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 expressed 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 Patriarches, to have no Superior to exercise jurisdiction over them, is only his own saying; and so with like facility denied, as asfirmed. The Ordination of them, by others, I have already shown, 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 short-handed Jurisdictions of particular Patriarches, were not able to reach. 
C. 7. S. 9   
But now comes the most dangerous blow of all: The Doctor did but take his aim all this while; now he is fetching the fatal stroke, and me thinks I see the Axe even now falling upon the neck of Rome. He threatens in his ninth Section, To put the whole matter out of controversy. 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 all this Island to that independent Archbishop or Primate. There is a trick now for the Pope, which he never dreamed of: Where first you see Mr▪ Hammond supposes, as granted, That the Pope's power is but merely Patriarchal, which is the chief, if not only thing in question between us: So as his method to put the whole matter out of Controversy, is to beg the supposal of the whole matter in Controversy. 
C. 6. S. 10.   
This supposal laid for a ground, he repeats again for his first instance, those two late answered Acts of justinian, erecting justiniana Prima and Carthage, two Archbishoprics or Primacies: Though himself acknowledges, That 
C. 6. S. 11.  Carthage was not originally dignified, but only restored to its Primacy by the said Emperor, after the Wandals were driven our; which being only an Act of preserving the former Canons of the Church inviolate, every good Christian Emperor, and Prince, not only may, but also aught 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 justiniana 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. justinian 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 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 senseless, and infer less than 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 only for that, but for many other things it lay under just exceptions, you had been put to the puzzling task of defending its authenticness.  
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 only, 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, Placentia, and Brixillis, are in the Rescript named, as under the Archbishop of Ravenna, which is a plain forgery; since, not long after▪ Pope Leo commanding Eusebius, Archbishop of Milan, to gather a Provincial Council of the Bishop's 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 Archbishopric, (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 Pope's only; 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 Country, cited this Rescript for its privilege) that he was forced to explicate that Pall to be Caesarum Paludamentum, such an Imperial Robe, as the Caesar's used to wear; whereas, besides the unlikeliness of the action, it is plainly contrary to the Rescript itself, 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, than the Emperor's 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 some pretence to retain still the use of the Pall, which they accounted honourable. Or, at least, it cannot be imagined to have been made without the Pope's 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 john; as the same Monuments affirm: Whence, the Doctor, but from a manifestly corrupted part of them, picked out this Testimony.  
That the after-Bishops of Ravenna were sometimes Schismatics, 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 Gregory's 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 only stead or excuse you thus far, to show, that others have been Schismatics as well as yourselves; and therefore you are not the first, nor only men that have fallen into a such a lapse: And thus far indeed, we grant your consequence; but it will not serve, to show that you are faultless, because they were faulty. You should have manifested first, the justifiableness of their fact, and then proceed by applying it, to justify your own. Or rather indeed it infers you are Schismatics, 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 Schismatics, whom he alleages as Testimonies against me; and that this also is, A method of security beyond all ANNULETS. 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 Controversy.  
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 Catholic Bishops, as a proud usurpation, and being against their common interest, to let the Pope pretend to an Universal Pastorship, aught 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 Pope's 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 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 administered: How did the Emperor justinian, the then Head of the Church (as the Doctor will have it) decide the Controversy, 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 allege the bare fact of a turbulent, rebellious, never-quiet City, against the justly-presumed acknowledgement, 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 Doctor's 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 Archbishoprics had from the Emperor's Charter, that privilege, 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, than Mr. Doctor, you know 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 privileged 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 Charles 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.  
The Doctor's Testimonies from Councils and Histories, found to be partly against himself, partly frivolous, and to no purpose.  
AFter his Evidence, from a forged Rescript 
C. 6. S. 14.  and a tumultuous rabble, 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 show, That this was a frequent usage in the East also; citing for it, no less authority than that highest one of General Councils. Sacred Witnesses! Whom to abuse, by imposing on them a false meaning, borders upon Profaneness.  
The first Testimony is, from the Twelfth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, where there is mention made of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. City's honoured 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 honour from the Metropolis so erected. What cause the Doctor hath to brag of those newly-erected Metropolitans, we shall presently show. He proceeds, That Balsamon saith, many Emperors had erected many Metropolitans, and that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the power that was given them. Thus far the Doctor; whereas,  
First the Council says only that those Cities were honoured with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Name alone, which the Doctor, fluent in his expressions, Englishes the Name and Dignity; the later whereof they wanted, that which should dignify them in a degree of a Metropolitan, being absolutely interdicted them by this very Canon, in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let them enjoy only the honour. Secondly, what this honour was, your friend Balsamon tells you; saying, Some desired to know what that honour meant; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and received answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that except only that this Bishopric was called a Metropolis, in all other things it was subject to the former Metropolis. 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 merely titular. Fourthly, our question being, whether the Emperor could give Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, not whether he could name places as he pleases; and it being evident hence, that either the Emperor never gave any jurisdiction to the new Metropolis, or if he did, it was cassated by the Council, nothing follows against us, but totally against yourself: now that they had no new Jurisdiction given them, is manifest out of the former pla●● in Balsamon, saying, the Episcopacy was only called a Metropolis; to which he subjoins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 citys; but leaves out a thing called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered by the Interpreter Olympia, 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 only 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 fallen into a great mistake. Balsamons' words are these. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Canon determining these things, may some one say, How then have divers Kings honoured divers Episcopacies to be Metropolitans: For now the Metropolis of Lacedemonia was a Bishopric of the Metropolis of old PATRAE, Madita of Heraclea, Abyous of Cyricum; and other Bishoprics also were honoured. It ●●ems therefore to me, from the eight and thirtieth Canon, etc. Where (to omit that Balsamon in the first part of this Testimony, intimates, That Kings may be checked 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 expressly attribute this power to the Prince, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If any City be built or restored by the King's 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 King's 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 shows 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 acknowledgement 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 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 allege here for yourself 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But since the present Canon defines that those Cities which are erected, or shall be erected by the Emperor, be honoured also by Churches conformably to the Emperor's disposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We say (saith Balsamon) that also BY THE PRESENT CANON IT IS GIVEN TO THE EMPEROR to make new Bishoprics, 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. My Imperial power not suffering THE PRIVILEGE WHICH IS GRANTED IT BY THE DIVINE CANONS to be neglected, ordains, etc. Was ever good man so mistaken as to cite such places, which, looked into, are as expressly against him, as if they were coined purposely in defiance of his doctrine? Yet he, forgetting the question, runs on with a long Testimony, That the Emperors could do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of his own motion, and without the ambitious solicitation 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 annexed to him, as Head of the Church, solicited or not solicited, to give it at all, and erect such Metropolitans at pleasure; or rather, whether it were an indulgence or privilege, granted and given him by the Church in her Canons: Which last is our tenet, and most evidently visible in the very Testimonies alleged against us.  
His second Testimony (for the two last were 
Ibid.  only his oversights 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, 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 Patriarches; adding in the end out of other men's 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 Ministry without the command of the Emperor.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And they add (saith Balsamon) that the King is neither under Laws nor Canons; and therefore he may securely make a Bishopric a Metropolis, etc.— 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 than 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 Patriarches, but the whole Hierarchy itself (your present lot, consequent to these your grounds.)  
Thus at length we have found the bottom-stone of the Doctor's 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, let Councils, Canons, Parliaments, and Laws say what they will to the contrary. A foundation fitting indeed to build the Doctor's Assertion upon, but in all other respects, able to ruin and overthrow both Laws, Commonwealths, Canons, and Church.  
In his fifteenth Section, persisting still in his 
C. 6. S. 15, 16.  feigned supposal, That the Pope's power is only Patriarchal; he goes on to prove, that the antiquity of translating Patriarches and Bishops belongs to Kings, as well as of erecting. Of which he gives some instances in our Country 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 expressly manifests the contrary from the carriage of St. Anselm, than 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 Diocese of Lincoln, as would make a new Bishopric at Ely, Anselm wrote to Pope Paschalis, desiring his consent to it; assuring him he would not give his consent, but saluâ authoritate Papae, the authority of the Pope being secured. Where you see plainly, the Archbishop's consent was necessary, and that without it, the King's desire seemed controleable: Next, that the Archbishop himself, even with the King's authority to back him, would not venture on it till the Pope's consent was asked.  
Here then Mr. Doctor you have a positive Testimony of the gravest Prelate our Country hath ever been honoured with, refusing the sufficiency of the King's sole authority to conclude such businesses, without his, and the Pope's consent; which therefore more justly challenges audience in the Court of Reason, than 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 yield to them; in what they are Negative, tacitly inferring, that because they were done, and no man's 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 only 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 by-discourse hindering the orderly process of their Narrative strain.  
Thirdly, because every one who hath the least smack of Logic knows, A Negative Argument proves nothing, such as are all yours here alleged. For this is the tenor of them, Historians say, Some Kings translated some Patriarchates, and it is not mentioned, they did it by the Church's power; therefore they did it by their own; which will be found in good Logic, 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 merely asserted and exemplified without the least shadow of proof.  
In the first example there alleged, 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 particular circumstances, and so must stand for an example of the King's 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 King's exempting, either with the Bishop's consent, or by title of ask, what conditions he thought fit to annex to his own Liberalities, as every private person may, or at most alleged 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 remembered 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 man's goods, and giving them to another; the power of doing all wrong, as is not only 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 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 justify 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 Bishoprics 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 King's presentation and authority, and consequently this is done by the consent of the Church: Neither is this annexed to the Kingly dignity only, as a particular badge 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, than 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 resistance to Kings that usurped the investitures, as of the others claiming of them; both being equally notorious in History, and the Princes in the end, having yielded 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 jurisdiction 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 Catholic 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 Pope's 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 Pope's Authority even in this kind, 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 expressly manifesting, That it is principally the King's power, or excluding the Churches; yet I have produced many things little to the purpose (if considered in their single selves) which, notwithstanding I would entreat you to believe, that ALL THESE PUT TOGETHER ARE A FOUNDATION, etc. 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 Pope's subjection, as a private Patriarch, but as the chief Pastor and Head of the Church.  
But, because the Doctor could not handsomely 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 show from some few Testimonies de facto, That it was not the Churches, but the King's 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 particularising the Authority, by which they were done. Especially in our case; where, by reason of the connexion between the Soul and Body of the politic 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 than 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 briar; and weary his adversary not to combat, but to catch him.   

SECT. 6.  
The Examination of the Testimonies produced by Mr. Hammond to prove his fundamental Position, that Kings are supreme in spiritual matters:  
THe endeavours of Mr. Hammond in the foregoing 
C. 6. S. 19  part of this Chapter was first, to suppose the Pope only 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 falsehoods, 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 loathe any well-ordered 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 it makes nothing at all to his purpose; since the very words he citys, 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 sense 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 alleged plainly signify the contrary: For, if there be a common Ruler of the Church, and the King be only 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 expressly witnessing, that Kings have nothing to do with Ecclesiastical affairs than this of Constantine; which the Doctor brings to prove the contrary. I mean if we take the words as the Doctor citys them▪ in Greek, without his can●ing translation of them. The words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In English thus, as near word by word as it can possibly be rendered. 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 pitifully puzzled notwithstanding, rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which signifies things without the Church) external things; because the right words would have excluded the Emperor's power over Ecclesiastical affairs; and yet even so it will not serve his turn; for unless he can make his own words (external things) signify spiritual things, to which they will be very unwilling, the Testimony is still expressly against him.  
Besides, it is pretty sport to observe how sillily insincere the Doctor is, telling us that Constantine the Great spoke those words in an Assembly of Bishops; by which and the Doctor's 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 find out the Author and the place (both which the Doctor had prudently omitted) I found it was only 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 find 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 kind 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 cum quae loquebatur eadem secum ment 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 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 applied 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 spoke 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 assumed to themselves the title of a Priest, as did this infatuated Emperor; who gave more credit to soothsayers 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 only word is wanting, to wit, supreme, which can make good the inference. The affairs of the Head depend on the 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 airy 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 find no such thing in that place he quotes. Indeed I find that ancient Father arguing like a present Catholic, calling the Doctor Schismatic, 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 sat 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 Catholic Church by the chair of Peter, 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 finds here a reason why we may justly be called Roman Catholics) 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 God's 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 itself, 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 Schismatics would deny that power so granted to be sufficiently Authoritative to punish their pernicious Apostasy.  
Then follow six Testimonies out of heathen writers all in a cluster, that their Kings ought to be Priests and Augurs, etc. and the Doctor would have the example transferred to Christianity. Indeed if jesus Christ had not come from heaven to found a Church, and (besides what hath been said of St. Peter's Primacy) left it under the Government of Ecclesiastical persons, the Apostles, committing all jurisdiction in affairs of that nature to them, without dependence 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 Doctor's Argument might have ta'en place▪ But if Christ founded a Church upon Apostles, Ecclesiastical persons, without the help of secular supports, leaving all power both of Ordination and jurisdiction to it, the Doctor must either prove no disparity between the sacred oeconomy of Christ's House, and the Babel of heathenism; or else grant his parity improper and absurd. I never imagined 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 only 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 Prince's hands, to alter and fashion it to the mould of the people's humours. But our alwise 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-byassed by worldly interests, and secular pretences. Yet the Doctor is so deeply immersed in Schism, that he relishes and fancies better the Pope-destroying example of heathen policy, than the ever-sacred, and heaven-instituted Government of Christianity.  
His eleventh instance is from David who ordered the courses of the Priests, and Solomon who consecrated the Temple; but the Doctor may 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 showed 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 Solomon's Consecrating the Temple, it was performed by offering Sacrifice; which he himself▪ offered not, but the Priests; so as his Consecrating it was nothing else but his causing them to Consecrate it. A pitiful proof that Kings are over the Church in Ecclesiastical affairs.  
His twelfth Testimony is of Hezekiah and josiah, 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, straight 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 produced & I observe, that though he be pretty good at mistaking all over his Book, yet when he omes to allege any thing out of God's 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 persuade us; but from the Tribunal of Portius Festus, a Roman Governor under Caesar, to Caesar himself; I will only put down the words as I find them in their own Translation, and so leave the Doctor to the Readers Judgement, either to be accused for wilfully abusing, or ignorantly mistaking them: But Festus willing to do the jews a pleasure, answered Paul and said, wilt thou go up to jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me: Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgement-seat where I ought to be judged, etc. Act. 25. 9, 10, etc. 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 justinian's 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 justinian's; since the Keepers of the Laws use not only to put in their Law-books 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 justinian 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▪ And last, 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 Church's decrees be received and put in execution. What you clap in within a Parenthesis (as your custom is to intermingle truth with falsehood) that Canons of Councils received their Authority by the Emperor; In the sense 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 looked 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 aim is, that they should not have the Authority or validity of a Canon, without the last-life-giving-hand of the Emperor's vote, which is only a strain 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.  
Other empty Proofs of this pretended Right, confuted.  
THese rubs being removed, it will be our next sport to address an answer to his nineteenth Section itself; 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 sense 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 judicature; 
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 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 than 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 expressed in Scripture; which is both expressly contrary to Scripture itself, and to common reason also.  
Besides, this wise proof is both most unjust towards us, and silly in him to expect; unjust towards us, engaging 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 show 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 Patriarches, 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, I can produce you the sense of the Catholic Church, the best Testimony that can be alleged for the meaning of God's Spirit; but because this weighs little with you, I show you next, the Testimony of common sense 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, than 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 God's Church.  
The Doctor's 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. Peter's 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, if he can show me in his Answer, that any one place expressly 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 Augustine's planting the Faith, did erect a Primacy at Canterbury, the seat of his Kingdom: Imperii sui totius Metropolis, saith Bede, etc. is such a childish piece of insincerity, that it craves as much pity as it deserves anger. For Bede only 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, etc. Then follows the Doctor's Testimony, Dedit ergo eis manfionem in Civitate Dovernensi quae Imperii sui totius erat Metropolis. Eisque, ut promiserat, cum administratione victus temporalis, etc. 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 hindered 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 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 upshot 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 King's 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 King's power, to wit, by the Popes; which is the question he professes to make head against: But proceeds not farther, then only 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 Mr. Doctor there are two reasons assignable for the fact, which you prove to be the King's power, because he did it, and then prove he did it, because otherwise it could not have been done.  
After he hath thus convinced 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 Constantine's time was made a Decree, that if the Donatist Bishops in afric would return to the Unity of the Church, they should be allowed either to keep the Bishoprics they had, or be provided of others: their obstinacy permitted not this to be executed, and therefore it was recalled. Near 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 Catholic Church; the cunning Balsamon puts the provision itself 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 citys 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 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, giveth 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, only 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 denied their Kings, only upon pretence of a Canon of a Council, and not upon Christ's 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 King's 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 only says, that some men say the Emperor can 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 Doctor's 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 alleged; 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 only the civil and Canon Law, there it extends no farther than 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 justice requires. Let the testimony itself 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 discourtesy 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 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 applied 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 easy 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 alls-to-be-labour 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 than Patriarchal, and consequently needed in rigour of dispute no other reply but only to deny the supposition, and bid him prove it. What has been answered to each particular, was only to let the Reader see how inconsequently and weakly he builds, even upon his own foundations.   

SECT. 8.  
A Reply to Doctor Hammonds Narrative▪ Confession of his Schism.  
THe Doctor having laid his tottering grounds for the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs, by alleging some Testimonies expressly against himself and his cause, and not one expressly for them, but what his fellow-schismaticks afforded him. Next having supposed upon his own strongly-dreaming imagination, without one direct place of any Authentic 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 Catholic world; that the Pope is only a private Patriarch and hath no right of Jurisdiction over the universal Church. And lastly, out of a few Testimonies witnessing the facto, that Kings did erect and remove Patriarchates, without any word excluding the Church's precedent orders, having concluded that such a power belonged the jure to Kings, and was annexed 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.  
But first he lays down at large the whole history of Schism (ommitting only 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 Bark 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, recognising 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 turned into Acts of Parliament, in which it was resolved upon the question to defy 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 all 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 i'll originized breach was not free: And thirdly, that though both these were granted, yet this act of theirs, so largely laid out by Doctor Hammond, is truly and properly a Schism, and entitles them schismatics; 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 conjoined to the Catholic Church under the government of her supreme Pastor, 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 Forefathers; nor were scandalised 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 than was the King (as is also acknowledged) let us see then what or who urged him, that so we may trace the schism to its first original, and show the newborn brat its right Parent.  
As for the King, while his blood was yet in due temper and not overheated 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 Pastor, 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 than any King now-adays can pretend; writing (or else causing to be set out in his name) a Book against Luther in defence of the Roman-Catholick Faith and the Pope's Authority which that Apostate rejected; for which work also he received in recompense 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 Henry's judgement of 
Henricus in Assert. 7. Sacram: contra Luth. Art. 2.  the Pope's Universal Authority till he fell into passion, is easy 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, 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 lest whatsoever Church is not hindered 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 far-spread 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 jurisdiction? 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 expressly 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 settled 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 Anne Bullen; she being too crafty to forgo the glittering offer of a Crown made unto her by the love-besotted▪ King; he grew strait perplexed in mind 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) persuaded him that his marriage with Katherine, although confirmed by two and twenty year's continuance, and sealed with the endearing pledge of issue, must needs be disanuld.  
The Pope was urged to dispense with his second marriage, though his former wife lived: King Henry wooed, entreated, bribed; then grew into choler, and at last plainly threatened a Schism, unless the Pope would grant and justify his unlawful desire.  
Here now if the Romish Religion were made up only of Policy (as those think whose eyes her prudent and heaven-ordered Government dazzles into a blind envy of her privileges) the Pope should rather have sought pretences to yield to this unwarrantable request, then have denied 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 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 virtuous 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 Boulogne's instalment: The marriage was celebrated with a divorce of our poor Country from the Church: Appeals to Rome, denied under pain of death.  
The Pope's Authority, which had remained inviolable, ever since we English were by its means converted, utterly rejected; nay, the very name of Pope razed 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 King's 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 embryo of it, Sacrilege, Queen Elizabeth, and Schism. And, though the Doctor excuses the imputation of King Henry's Sacrilege, saying, That Sacrilege is no more Schism, than it is Adultery; yet it is enough, if he grant (as he 
C. 7. S. 20.  must) That both his Sacrilege and his Schism, were born of the same mother-occasion, the King's lust; and so, though the Doctor say, That  —— facies non omnibus una▪ 
Yet I answer,  Nec diversa tamen, qualem decet esse sororum: 

—— their faces not the same;  
Nor different yet, as sisters well became.   
Neither is this all to show, 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 shoes, 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 outweighing the pleasure of his Body, he with extreme 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 not-admitting 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) than 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, which by the whole scope of this Chapter, you seem not to do, it will be found to have no nobler an extraction, than the former; only perhaps, the carnal sin in him, may be changed into a spiritual one in you; that is, King Henry's lust, into your selfconceited pride, and refractory disobedience; which may indeed outvie 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 Henry's present persuasion, 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 persuasion.  
Thus much for the first thing I undertook to show, 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 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 persuasions 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 easy 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 adds, 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▪ only weak, but to have been hardened, and lost for the future all feeling of Conscience for their lapse; since the foregoing 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 Mary's time, and their persisting in Queen Elizabeth's days, rather evidences, That the curb being removed, which misled them, it was Conscience which made them return; and strength and force of Conscience which made them afterwards persevere in the same judgement.  
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 Schismatics. The first part is so clear, that it needs no proof, since the very deed bears witness. For first, yourself acknowledge, you 
C. 7. S. 5.  renounced the Authority of the Roman See, and cast it out of this Island. Which Authority yet you must acknowledge likewise, That all the whole World, which before the breach you held the only good Christians, submitted to as sacred, and descended from Christ's institution▪ which Authority was known and held, both by them, and yourselves, 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 only of a Patriarchate, your Conversion, or Grant of Kings, but of an Universal Primacy and Pastorship over the whole Church by Christ's grant, and before your conversion was dreamed on.  
Lastly, The Government of the Church thus established, was held by all those whom before that day you accounted the only Faithful, as of Divine Right, and a point of Faith; and that the denial of it, twisted into one crime, both Heresy and Schism.  
A manifest breach then, and Schism there was 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 yourselves 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 itself 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 God's Church, by casting out of the Kingdom, the supreme Authority, in which, as in a knot, the other several ends were summed and tied up; therefore you also unravelled and broke asunder its unity.  
This then, as it is acknowledged by you, so in itself, 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 add your proofs out of the Fathers, in your first Chapter, affirming▪ 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 Schismatics. I will put the Argument in form, to make it more plain, only 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,  No Separation from the whole Body of Christians can possibly be justified, say the Fathers, by you alleged, Chap. 1. Sect. 8. But your Separation was from the whole Body of Christians: Therefore impossible to be justified. 
Where all the evasion I can imagine 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 show, That no just cause can be alleged for the crime of Schism, since every one knows there can be no just excuse possible for any crime.  
Next, the Fathers there alleged, pretend to particularise some special viciousness in 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 Schismatics.  
Now all the Testimonies alleged by 
C. 7. S. 6.  yourself against Schism, come in troops, bandying against you, and your cause, as strongly, as if they had been expressly gathered to that purpose. As, that a Schismatic is à semetipso damnatus, self-condemned▪ which you have here very learnedly performed, as I lately showed, That ultrò ex Ecclesia se e●icerent, they cast themselves voluntarily out of the Church, etc. Quomodo t● à tot gregibu● scidisti? Excidisti enim teipsum. How hast thou cut off thyself from so many flocks? For thyself hast cut off thyself; of which accusation, your fifth Paragraph infers the confession: Your own voluntary recession from us, and our Government, by yourself here acknowledged, is an indelible token, and (as it were) a visible ear-mark, that you are a stray▪ sheep, and a runaway, à to● gregibus, from the flock.  
This badge 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  
The nature of Schism fetch▪ t from its first grounds; and the material part of it fastened upon the Protestants.  
TO lay this charge of Schism 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 mould of it. For the better conceiving of which, it will be necessary to show first what it is, which makes the Sons of the Catholic Church like brethren live together in Unity: and this will lead us into the consideration first of the formal Unity itself, and secondly of the Reason and Ground of this Unity.  
The Unity itself consists in two things; one is, the submitting to and communicating in one common Head or Government; the Authority of which, if it be established 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 Commonwealth. 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 etc. To these was 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 acknowledgement, 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 express 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 Cement of Unity) but it must be a visible one, resulting 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 therefore cannot be that proper, peculiar and sole tie, which unites the Faithful, as they are a Commonwealth of Believers.  
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 Faithful. Whence it follows, that the Unity of the Faithful, 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 faithful; but the infallibility 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 bind them to an Unity in it? The denying therefore of this Infallibility is the reason of all Schism, and even of Heresy too; nay, itself is the Heresy of Heresies, opening a liberty for every man to embrace his own 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 men's consciences to a Religion, whose con●est uncertainty must needs infer an absolute abolishment of all Church discipline, and content itself with a mere voluntary obedience, that is, legitimate 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 Church's 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-erring Rule, which teaches us the rest of his Doctrine. He therefore that denies this Infallibility, hath no sufficient reason to believe the Article of the Church's Government, and consequently will easily find evasion to excuse his obedience to her commands.  
The Unity of the Church being thus clearly delivered, there needs no new task to show what Schism is; it being nothing else but the unknitting and dissolving these several manners of this Unity and Communion, and in breaking asunder that tye and obligation, by which these Unions of the several members with one another, and of all with the Head, are firmed and made inviolable. What remains to be done is only to show that this Anatomy of Schism is the perfect picture, nay the very Sceleton of the carkasse-Church of England; and that they have infringed the laws 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 Pastor 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 confess 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 only, but a large step higher, to wit, universally extended over all Patriarches and the whole Church, was that which you cast out, and subtracted yourself 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 Arohbishop etc. How will you excuse yourselves 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 superior Governor than either Bishop, Archbishop, Primate or Patriarch. In vain then was your long frivolous digression, that Kings may erect and translate Patriarchates, since a greater Authority than a Patriarch was 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; only this remains certain and acknowledged, 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 acknowledgement 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 less evident you have broke asunder all positive Communion, not in Government only (as hath been shown) but in Faith and Sacraments with all Churches which communicated with the See of Rome, whom, before your Schism, you 〈◊〉 the only and sole true Members of Christ's mystical Body. That you broke from their Communion in Government hath been already manifested from your rejecting her Supreme Governor, in the subjection to whom they all communicated. Nor is it less evident that you have broke from their Faith, as appears from the irreconcilable 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 pared away as unnecessary; the sixth transelementated from the sacred price of our Redemption into the egena elementa of bread and wine: and the seventh only, that is, Baptism, with much ado 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 signs 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 than 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 renewed Communion with some other, which was acknowledged by all the World, or at least by yourselves before the breach to have been a true one. But you can pretend no such thing as Communication with any Church either true or even falls. For first at your dawning or rather twilight in King Henry's days (for your progress hath not been to noon-day-light, but to midnight) you had nothing at all to do with any other Church in Christendom. Since that time, though you have indeed a kind of Communication with some few of your fellow Schismatics, yet, if well examined, it is negative only. Faction against Rome initiates you into so much friendship as to converse with the Calvinists; sometimes to call them Brethren; sometimes to be merry with your doublejug Companions in the Synod of Dort, of whose drunken and beastly behaviour, wallowing worse than 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 discovered between you and any other Church good or bad, true or falls. The Greek Church holding almost all that we do, 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 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 Bottom of the Foundation of the Reformation; to wit, that the King is Head of the Church. The 39 Articles, which (as the King's 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 only Christ in Heaven, or only Charity: pretences to gull the easy vulgar, not to satisfy prudent men; who know that the Church, though it be a spiritual Commonwealth, breeding up Souls 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 Christ's laws, of which the Church is the Keeper and Conserver; and therefore it must have visible Governors, 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 Exomologesis or Motives etc. of Mr. Cressy, a late Protestant Dean, but now Religious of the ancient and holy Order of St. Benet, where the Doctor may also read (among other controversies excellently treated) the charge of Schism, sufficiently proved against his Church.  
Perhaps the Doctor will allege, that their positive Communion with other reformed Churches consists in the acknowledgement of God's Word and the holding to it. But I would ask him, whether he means they agree in the Name of God's Word, or in the Thing, or Sense of it. If in the Name only, than all that have the title of Christians, that is, all Heretics and Schismatics in the World are of one Communion; nothing being more rife in their mouths and pens, than wrong alleged testimonies out of the Bible; the bare name then is not sufficient, it must be the Thing, that is, the sense and meaning of God's 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 God's word, and fetch out the true inward sense, lurking in the imperspicuous bark of the letter, it follows they have no positive way or means to communicate in the same sense, and therefore no positive unity can be grounded on that pretence. And it would be as senseless to object that they communicate at least in fundamentals, found in God's 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 tenor delivered and proposed to them. And if we should go 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.  
No positive communion therefore have they with our Church, as little with their fellow schismatics; 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 moistening sap, counterfeiting life; that is, as much Religion as serves them to talk of God and Christ) yet after a while they whither, ro●, and molder away into an hundred atoms 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 the reforming Protestants were and are guilty of the formal part of Schism.  
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 unless you can show, you must unavoidably be concluded formal schismatics: 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 to make this matter still more manifest, I desire Mr. Hammond, in the Church's behalf, that he would give me leave to summon him to the Bar of Reason, that we may see what he can answer for himself, and his friends, whose defence here he undertakes.  Cath. 
Do not you know that the Church (in whose bowels your ancestors, till K. Henry began the breach, were bred) had no other form of Government then that which now is of the Bishop of Rome; held chief Pastor of the universal Church, and supreme in Ecclesiastical matters; and that, till the breach was made, you held as sacred, and were under that government?  Dr. 
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.  Cath. 
Do not answer, (Dr.) de Cepis, when we ask de alliis; you might have saved your labour in a great part of your Book, where you slipped the question, and digressed to Patriarches. 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 years, ever since Pope Gregory sent Austin the Monk to convert the Saxons, forefathers to us English.  Dr. 
I know no Authority he ever had in England more than Patriarchal.  Cath. 
Do not you know that the Pope's Authority then acknowledged in England was held above Patriarches, and therefore more than Patriarchal; and that you grant you cast out of this Island, not a Patriarchal Authority only, but a Papal one?  Dr. 
True; but the pretended Authority was usurped, and not according to God's Ordinance.  Cath. 
How know you it was usurped? will bare probabilities be a sufficient ground to renounce an authority so long established in possession, held sacred ever before, and to which yourselves were till then subject; will, I say, a mere probability, that perhaps that authority was not sacred, but unjust, serve your turn to excuse you from disobedience in renouncing it?  Dr. 
No Sir, we have evidence it was unjust; and that the Church we were brought up in erred in that point of belief.  Cath. 
This evidence of yours must either be a Demonstration from natural reason; or an undeniable testimony, either divine or humane.  Dr. 
I do not pretend natural demonstration; but we have evident testimonies against it.  Cath. 
Can you manifest that those testimonies (and the like may▪ be said of Arguments from natural reason) have not been answered twenty times over by our Writers; and (in case they have) can you show that you have replied upon all their answers, so as they bear now no probable show 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 expressly, or more, to make for us, as yours do for you? If so, your testimonies are at least counterpoised with the weight of ours, and so cannot make an evidence, but hang only in the hover scales of a doubtful probability. Thirdly, are your testimonies such that they are of greater weight than the judgement of all the Catholic 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 overbalance so far-extended, so numerous, and so learned an Authority? If not, they are so far from evidences, that they fall short of being probabilities.  Dr. 
I see you will hold to no authority, but that of your own Church, and this is a method of security beyond all Annulets.  Cath. 
And good reason too, unless you can show us a greater.  Dr. 
A greater we have, id est, God's word, out of which we can evidence, that your Church, we were brought up in, was fallible, yea ened in many points, and particularly in this of the Pope's Supremacy.  Cath. 
You cannot with any face pretend an evidence from Scripture against us, unless you can evidence a greater faculty and means to interpret those Oracles in you or your first Reformers, than there was in the Church you left: And since these means 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 knowledge, you cannot be ignorant, that at the time of the breach, the Catholic Church had an hundred Doctors for one of yours; what an unproportioned advantage than must that number swell to, if all the learned men in the many foregoing ages, without any one of your Sect (than unheard of) to counterbalance them, be heaped into one Bulk, and those too, such as yourselves must acknowledge far more eminent in School Divinity, study in Scripture, and all kind of Learning both divine and humane, than any of King Henry's fellow-reformers were ever deemed; or if you stiffly deny an advantage, we as stiffly pretend it; and so leave it a drawn ma●ch for what concerns their parts; yet you yourselves must giant, you are incomparably overpowered in the numerous multitude of them.  
In natural means 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 Superiors and Pastors, which can make them pretend to a clear knowledge thence that our Church hath erred: But since no supernatural thing, that is latent and invisible in itself, can be evidenced or acknowledged to be such, without some exterior token exceeding the power and skill of nature, as are miracles, gift of tongues, etc. none of which you can lay claim to; it follows, that neither your reforming forefathers nor yourselves can produce evidence of any better means, either supernatural or natural to interpret Scriptures than the Church you left; therefore no evidence that they more truly interpreted it than that Church; therefore none thence that the Church erred; therefore none from divine Authority, and no humane authority being found comparable to that of the Church, it follows they can have as little evidence from thence. Evident therefore it is that you neither had nor now have any evidence at all, but only a probable perhaps, that the Church erred; which being too slight a Reason to shake off subjection to an authority so long established 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 yourself here confess Sect. 5. that you cast this Authority out of this Island, without power to evidence that that Church erred, as hath been shown. What excuse then can you allege to clear your Father-Reformers, and yourself from a most irrational, and selfe-condemning Schism, nay more, heresy?  Dr. 
At least they had such proofs as they thought evident, and bred in them a present persuasion that the Church hath erred, which they could not in conscience go against; and therefore it was hard dealing to punish them with Excommunication for proceeding conscientiously according to their present persuasion.  Cath. 
I doubt not but they might have a present persuasion that the Church hath erred; but I doubt much whether this present persuasion be sufficient to excuse them either from sin or punishment. For this persuasion of theirs is either rational or irrational; if rational, a sufficient reason may be rendered why they denied so qualified a Government; and reason itself telling us that no reason less than evidence is sufficient, it would follow that evidence may be rendered that the Government was injust ' which, as you see, could not: Irrational therefore was that present persuasion 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 persuasions are, which make men think and act against their duties and obligations; Besides, all the Logic we have hitherto heard, assures us nothing can convince the understanding but evidence, and therefore men take so much pains 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 wilfulness; and by consequence cannot be free from desert of punishment, if it happen to be wrong and wrongful. Neither avails 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 settled in the possession of their command, till most open and undeniable Evidences, and not seeming ones only, should discover that Authority null. And, if the obligation be of belief, he must condemn the Church's judgement in not seeing the falsity of her doctrine, and prefer his own before millions more learned, who lived and died in that faith, which savours too strong of a selfconceited pride; or else imagine so little sincerity left in the Church, that all see and wilfully adhere to a known falsehood, but himself; which is a plain sign of a rash and Pharisaical presumption. And are not those punishable? yet the Doctor would struck such a fellow on the head, and give him sugar plums for following his present persuasion 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 joined together give you in plain terms your own name of flat proper and formal Schismatics, and entitle you to all the beadroll of vices and curses which you hoarded up for yourself and your friends in your first Chapter.   

SECT. 11.  
The Doctor's argument▪ that the Pope's power in England was derived under the King's Concession, refuted.  
BUt it is now high time to return 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 Governor 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 his Chap. 4, 5, 6. all pretensions from St. Peter's Supremacy, and from England's Conversion; (to whose particular answers I refer the Reader for full satisfaction) and he has now invented a new ground of the Pope's Supremacy in England, to wit, the voluntary Concession of our Kings. What the Doctor means I cannot imagine. Some particular privileges, and (as I may say) pious courtesies 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 john Falstaff; let him tell his own story, and he'll make you believe he has killed eleven Enemies, when but one opposed him. We only found the Pope's Primacy upon his Succession to St. Peter: This is the only adversary-point the Doctor is to combat, which he hath most weakly opposed with gross mistakes, palpable contradictions to Scripture, and pinning all the words that made for his purpose to every testimony, as hath been showed: 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 impugns them as really, as if he thought we held them. The Pope cannot do any good action, or convert a Nation, but that must be the ground of his Universal Pastorship over us, and be impugned accordingly; A beggarly penny cannot be given to the Pope by our Kings for pious uses, and out of a grateful obligation, but the poor Peter-pences and such like petty grants must presently be the Pope's 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 do it not are concluded to be free from the Pope's Jurisdiction; though he knows well enough, that the King of France, who as he confesses performs no such ceremonious courtesy towards him, acknowledged notwithstanding himself subject to him, as the Head of God's Church. Lastly, (which he touches here again) he cannot read in some Authors that Kings de facto executed the erecting and removing of Patriarchates, though the testimony do not exclude the Church's fore▪ ordering it; but presently the Pope's Universal Power must be supposed to be transdignified 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 down the walls of Rome. He was borne a Controvertist; and it is an even wager whether he 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 bugbear Argument upon the stage, but when he has made a Prologue for it of some forged supposition of his own; and then the Thing, in virtue of that, acts and talks through the vizard of a mistake; and yet, ere it comes to a Conclusion, the Doctor's weak reason cracks to make both ends meet. The sum 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, than the grant was invalid: If it were, then either the same power remains still in the King to dispose of it to some other; or else, it does not remain in him, and▪ then is his power diminished, and so the Act is again invalid. I answer, the Authority of the Pope was never held, by concession of our Kings, in any other sense than this, that our Kings (as all other Christian Kings did) yielded him what they held as of Faith to be due to him, that is, Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters; and therefore that they not only lawfully granted it, but could not deny▪ it, except most unlawfully. Therefore their act of yielding to it was not invalid, but very valid for what it was intended, which was to express their obligation in deferring to the Head of the Church what was his due. Wherefore he cannot dispose of it to any other or remove it, since the Papacy (which is the thing in question) was never imagined at any private King's disposal till Doctor Hammonds time. Again his inference, that if it were in the King's Power, the same Power remains 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 yielding sometimes Forts, sometimes an Island or Country to an overpowering enemy; and yet that act of theirs held valid notwithstanding.  
Then (to prove this assertion) as the fellow that put four 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 find, put four kind of seekers, some that seek and find not, others that find and seek not, others that both find 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 piece of Philosophy. Thus the Sun communicates his beams, and with them his warmth and influence, and yet retains all which it thus communicates, and accordingly 
C. 7. Sect. 10  withdraweth them again. This Book (as the Reader must conceive) is the Doctor's Encyclopedia, encompassing at once the whole world of Sciences. He hath before given us notice of Scriptures, Fathers, Councils, History, Law, Greek, Hebrew, Grammar, and Criticisms: now he gives here a proof of Philosophy and knowledge of Nature, and lets thee understand so strange a truth as no man, unless he were out of his wits, could imagine; to wit, that the very beams, sent hither by the Sun, are notwithstanding retained there still; and therefore are in more far-distant places at the same time; so granting, that the ordinary course of Nature performs more in a creature, than he will grant God's omnipotency can work in the glorified body of our Lord Creator in the ever-blessed Sacrament. Nay more, he assures us that the Sun ACCORDINGLY withdraweth them again. What he means by ACCORDINGLY in that place I cannot tell; less can I understand how the Sun withdraws his beams 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 Sun's beams back to him; much less pullyes and long strings in the Sun to withdraw them (as the Doctor expresses it) accordingly too. But the Doctor had framed his▪ observation from the access and recess of the beams of a candle in his own eyes, when he was drowsy; and dreamt it seems ●●at night, that the eye of Heaven 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 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, than you do 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 bountiful hand from a further bestowing it.  
This supposed, he tells us the King retains yet the power granted to the Pope, and so may dispose of it to a Bishop of his own; and that the King's power frees them from that obedience and clears the whole business of Schism. Alas! what a weak reed you catch at to secure you from falling into the gulf of Schism? Huic ipst partono opus est quem defensorem paras. Your Patron, the King, needs a Patron himself. You should first evidence that the King might lawfully renounce the so long possessed, so universally acknowledged authority over himself as well as his subjects in Ecclesiastical matters, ere you launch forth into such selfe-said, and selfe-authorized Conclusions; otherwise to run widly forwards on your own feigned 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 Coin goes currant, than for a controversy, where no progress is allowable but what is already made good by undeniable testimonies and well-grounded Reasons.  
He shuts up the Paragraph with talking of the Pope's willingness to enlarge his Territory. True Sir, the Church is his Territory, which he is daily both willing and industrious to enlarge, by converting barbarous Nations to Christ's 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 bears 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 daily 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 scorns to be held in by a weak bank of turf, which once forced its passage through the midst of a Rock; and with good reason too, for why should an acknowledged fallibility bridle them now, whom before an acknowledged infallibility could not restrain.  
But you would make Queen Mary co partner 
C. ●. Sect 11  in your Schism, and allege her retaining for 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 less 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 only permitted that the former phrase of the Laws, which nicknamed her so, might be used; till she, having settled the turbulent spirits, raised by your good doctrine, which opposed her renouncing it, found an handsome occasion to disclaim that title, usurped by her late Predecessors. Yourself confessing, that she urged the matter afterwards in a Parliament, and with much difficulty obtained it. Which plainly clears 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 knows, unless he could dive into the mysterious depth of the Doctor's thoughts. For, besides that there was another Legate in England at that time, All Catholic Countries when they saw it convenient have done the same, and yet ar● reputed true sons of the Church, since they retain as humble an Obedience to the See of Rome, and as firmly acknowledge her authority as those who admit them. But I see the Doctor knows not in what the absolute Supremacy (as he calls it) of the Pope consists; Every waving 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, denied them to be Monarches or Heads of the Commonwealth. Neither can I see that this, as you fancy, makes your breach less strange; but rather much stranger, that whereas Rome was so far from that tyranny falsely by you imputed to her, that you might have (as Queen Mary and as Catholic Kings now do) denied to admit the Pope's Legates, 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 Superior; yet neither this moderate carriage nor any thing else could satisfy your resolute and desperate disobedience; but to reject the very Authority itself, 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 Bottom upon which the Foundation of Reformation was laid; upon which by the same workmen (who pulled down a 
C. 7. Sect. 12  good house to build a worse) was erected a superstructure: in King Henry's days, the number of the Sacraments, translation of the Bible, and the use of the Lords prayer in the English Tongue; as if the Lord's Prayer was never used in the vulgar language till King Henry's holiness ordained it. As for the King's Vicar-general, who presided in his duely-assembled Council (as you call it) I can say no more of him, but he was a proper fellow. Domini similis, like his Master; Vicegerent to him in that high and mighty title of the Chief of Schismatics, 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 Edward's days: 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 days invalid and vilify them, because the King was yet alas but a child, assuring us therefore that the Laws 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 Schismatics; unless this child or man had been wiser, holier, and olde● than all God's Church, so to justify the breach which his Father had made.  
Very pitiful than had been the Doctor's refuge, had the infant King the Head of thei● Church been at years of discretion; but ye● far more pitiful is it, the then Protector steering the helm of the Commonwealth; who●e traitorous and ambitious design to intercept Queen Mary's succession being manifestly discovered, whatever he acted against Catholics 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 only lawful but pious and commendable. Yet his tyranny in secular matters is become even the Supreme Power in Ecclesiastical; and so the Reformation goes on in the Doctor's Book currently and merrily; especially though some Bishops resisted and were punished, yet (as the Doctor says) Archbishop Cranmer (who kept a Wench in King Henry's time) and the far greater number of Bishops joining 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 Mary's days, were not only persecuted with fire but with ●agot too; To answer which, let the Dr. but clear those malefactors from Schism and Sedition, and we shall acknowledge the cruelty ours, and the innocency theirs; otherwise let them remember our pretended persecution was only execution of justice, and theirs a most sacrilegious and irreligious tyranny. But I smell by the Dr. that he hath been in john 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 practices 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 lawfulness of the marriage of the Clergy was asserted, (the Dr. likes that point of faith dearly) the English Liturgy form, the people got wine to their bread, etc. But that illfavord, etc. dashes out the best. Then, than it was (the Dr. should have added) that those two sweet singers of Israel, Hopkins and Sternhold, (as Cleveland expresses it) murdered the Psalms 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, than it was that that second Solomon, Robert Wisdom, inspired questionless from Heaven, warbled out that melodious and exquisite hymn, which with a sweet twang closes up the book of Psalms.  

Preserve us Lord, by thy dear word,  
From Turk and Pope, defend us Lord.   
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 underage Bride-Church, to celebrate her espousals or marriage with her Infant-Head.  
After this the Dr. treats 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 according to the ancient Canons by the imposition of the hands of the Bishops. Yet this modest evidencing Record durst never show its head for about fifty years, notwithstanding the outcries made by Catholics 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 witness that they have any more Authority to preach then an Anabaptistical Zealot, whose profession is perhaps a Weaver; his Calling, his own Intrusion; his Pulpit a Tub, and his Diocese a Conventicle. But suppose you had a material Mission from the hands of Catholic 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 Catholic 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. Unless 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 only upon your own head, without any authority but your own selfe-assumed licentiousness to talk and say what you list; not derived from the consecrated hands of your Catholic 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 only that in that fact she did after kind; for supposing her once the Head of schismatics and Chief-Bishopesse of their Church, I see no reason but she should depose Bishops, catholicly affected, and install heretical ones; and in a word, she and her Bishop's vo●e and act whatever they thought good, and I cannot tell what should hinder them, since the now rejected Authority of God's 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 man's wit imagine; for the Authority of the Church being schismatically renounced, and the infallible rule of Faith, which could only oblige men to an unanimous belief, being broken and rejected; these grounds▪ I say, being laid, I yield that the superstructure not only of their heresy, 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, upon the forelaid foundations. The ruin 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 divesting 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 divesting those Bishops, which thus refused to secure her Government, or to approve their fidelity to their lawful Sovereign. By which one may see the Doctor knows not the difference between the oath of Allegiance and the oath of Supremacy. The oath of Allegiance or fidelity was instituted expressly for that purpose; what needed she then press them to take the oath of Supremacy, to approve their Fidelity or Allegiance; cannot one be a true subject to his King by acknowledging him his Liege Sovereign, 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 Catholic 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 follows, is only 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 only 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 though himself 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 Bishop's 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 homebred fellow that thought the Sun set at the next town; if a King or Queen here with a few Bishops, partly out of fear, partly out of favour, some out of malice (and contradicted by others) decree any thing, it makes the case irrefragable in the Doctor's judgement: Not considering (which yet any prudent man would) that the whole world, whom before they accounted only Catholic, and in which had been hundreds of King's Queens and Bishops, nay perhaps thousands for one of theirs, had ever condemned by their contrary belief these Votes and Acts to be scismatical and heretical. Besides, this King before the breach acknowledging himself subject to that Authority in Ecclesiastical matters, as all Catholic Kings now do, and as all his Ancestor-Kings ever since England's conversion had done, it must be, as I have told you often▪ most apparent evidence, and such as greater cannot be imagined, which may warrant him to exalt himself above the Pope's Authority, so long settled in possession, and that in those very things in which before he was acknowledgedly under him; especially the contrary verdict of such an universality, as I have before mentioned, with its weight not to be counterpoised, 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 starlike eyes, that the Pope was Antichrist, his Authority unlawful; and himself, who was then found under it in Ecclesiastical matters, to be indeed above it, in case the Pope's 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 performed in any other manner than the very method by which their Reformation was introduced? The other is whether the Reformation be yet perfectly complete, or rather that Queen Elizabeth swept the Church indeed, but left the dust sluttishly behind the door; if it be not yet complete, I would gladly know how far this Reformation and Receding from Rome may proceed; and what be the certain stints, and limits of this rolling Sea, which it may not pass? For I see no reason in the Doctor's grounds, but if the secular powers think it convenient, they may reform still end▪ ways 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 Heretics to evince the Tenet; if this than were voted by a King, some of his Bishops and a Parliament, the Doctor must not disobey and hold Christ's Divinity; since the thing was done by them to whom (as the Doctor says) rightful power legally pertained. 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 Superiors, so as upon these grounds all religion may be reform 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.    

THE THIRD PART.  
Containing the answers to the four last Chapters of Dr. Hammonds Schism.  

SECT. 1.  
Doctor Hammonds second sort of Schism, and his pretence that they retain the way to preserve Unity in Faith, refuted.  
MAster Hammond hath at length finished 
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 himself and his Apostles settled 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 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 practices, etc. 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 Christ's 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 settled 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 signify an Offence against Superiors and Governors of the Church; and than it is again co-incident both with the first general Head of Schism, which dissolves the subordination of the Church's subjects; and 
Sect. 2.  also with the first particular species of Schism against mutual Charity, which (according to the Doctor's method) included a breach from the Government instituted by Christ. Or else, they must signify an Offence against the mutually and equally-due correspondence and Charity, which one fellow-member ought to have to another; and than 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, than the Doctor's 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 doctrines contrary to Christ's and the Apostolical pure Church's establishment. But first he clears himself 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 huddled together as words. For first, what signifies the Bp. of Rome was not appointed by Christ? Christ was not on earth when St. Peter's Successors in the See of Rome, sat there; and when he ordained St. Peter chief of the Apostles, Saint Peter was not yet Bishop of Rome. Next, if he means that St. Peter was not appointed by our Saviour, as the Head of Christian Unity, St. Hierom's testimony, I suppose, will be as good as the Doctor's word, who tells us, Inter duodecim, etc. Amongst the, twelve one 
Hierom. contra jovinian.  was chosen, that A HEAD being constituted, the OCCASION OF SCHISM MIGHT BE TAKEN AWAY. Where we see expressly Saint Peter, the Pope's 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 Doctor's assertion. Fourthly, he equivocates in the word Roman Church, and takes in it a sense which he knows we never meant: Our acception of it being of the Universal Church communicating with the Mother Church of Rome; his, of the private Diocese of Rome itself. Fifthly, it is groundless to affirm, even of this private Church of Rome itself, 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 belief, 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 Doctor's intent in saying Christ did not appoint the Church of Rome conservatory (for ever) of all Christian truth? What means this canting Parenthesis (for ever) As if Christ might perhaps appoint her to conserve truth for a while, but meant after some time 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, etc. is fully acknowledged by their Reformation. Which way (says 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, etc. 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 means 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 stays at home, but halts very lamely in the midway. He stays 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 appears 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 less) upon their preaching and depositing them in the Churches; nay more, the Unity of Faith, that is, Faith itself, (for Faith, if not one, is none) upon this way of depositing. Yet for all this he will not go 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 says is A WAY TO PRESERVE UNITY IN FAITH; and on the other side he sees what multiplicity is bred by the divers 
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 something 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▪ they might as well be infallible in other necessary points also, and so the Doctor hath slipped, by good hap, into our Rule of Faith, and (though hoodwinked) goes to Church again. But if they be not infallible, that is, cannot certainly tell us that they delivered us the right depositum, and the same they received, than the Drremaines as he is, and hath brought nothing to his purpose. For since Unity of Faith cannot be preserved without some efficacious means 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 Doctor's purpose; that is, it had been no efficacious way to preserve Unity of Faith.  
He adds 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 seems 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 means by these words) the doctrines deposited in the Church, as zealously as the Romanists, they must hold them as of Faith; for so far 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 far as the Church-door. But when he hears them within the Church talk that a company of men can be Infallible; he leaps you back at one jump as far as the Sceptic Schools of the Heathen Academics.  
But how could Mr. Hammond imagine this pretence sufficient to acquit him from Scism in renouncing the way to preserve Unity of Faith, or to prove that he and his fellows still fully acknowledged it. The way to preserve Unity of Faith, held by all the Christian world before their breach, was the belief of the Church's Infallibility; and we think man's 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 shown, and as the 19th Article of Queen Elizabeth's 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 believed fallibility can be a better way to preserve Unity in Faith, than a belief 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 inferior 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 Patriarches 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● Faith! For, if notwithstanding this subordination, no Priest is bound to believe 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 errors, 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 Heresy, 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 descent from an heretical Metropolitan, but consents with a Catholic 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 than we have found none of the Doctor's Annulets against Shism. Let us proceed; If a Patriarch descent from the first, from the Doctor's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but yet concedes to all the rest, is it yet schism? The Doctor answers, no; For in regard he owed the other only 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 branched 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 ears, and all may find lawful excuses to secure them from▪ being schismatics; since the oeconomy of that distracted Family is so ordered, that neither any one in particular, nor any in common, have any tie to hold them to the rest, without which tie of consent in matters of faith, this imagined subordination can no way be a means 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 Emperor all this while, is he no body now, who before was the Chief? It seems 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 King was Chief Governor, Head of the Church, Supreme in Ecclesiastical matters, over and above both Metropolitans and Patriarches, etc. 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 inferior, Bishop? or accounts he it a small sin for a Patriarch to descent from so Sacred a Head of his Church, and his lawful Superior, nay Supreme in Ecclestastical matters, and to whom the rightful power (as the Doctor told us) in those things legally pertains? 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'er▪ 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 height of Schism to descent in a point of Faith from a Thing which neither the Catholics, nor yet Protestants (as you here see) acknowledge; but a kind of a Lay-Elder, an Office, which (were it not three days older) might seem borrowed from their dearly beloved brethren the Presbyterians.  
Yet the Doctor is grown kind; and allows 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 jurisdiction; And it stands only upon the certainty of your, and our interpretation of Scripture, whether it signify 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 Saviour's life time; but you told us before that S. john had the dignity of place (which is the same with Primacy of Order) before all others in Christ's life 
C. 4. S. 14.  time, even before S. Peter himself▪ The Primacy then which S. Peter had in Christ's life time, must be some other Primacy; and what Primacy could this be, but the Primacy of jurisdiction? 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 Pope's Authority, and all that is held by us as of Faith; but if he means by Primacy there, a merely 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 fear the good Apostles should fall to compliment, who should sit, go, or speak, in the first place: and consequently this tenet (being an Act of our Saviour's, registered in Scripture) must be 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.  fears 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? do you not find evidently that the Church (before Luther and K▪ Henry renounced the said Authority) enjoyed most perfect peace and tranquillity, as those who are under that government do most blessedly now? and on the contrary, that after that Authority was rejected, nothing has succeeded the rejecters, but perpetual turmoils, 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 witness a truth? Lastly, do 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 digged for yourselves? Did your Ancestors find so little Unity under the Government of the Roman Catholic Church, or have you found such a constant Unity since you left it, that you can presume the readmitting that Government is never likely to tend to Unity? Yet you cannot think otherwise, unless all other Churches of Christians paid that subjection too. Do you your obligation; why should their backwardness in their duties make you deny yours? Besides, whom do you call Christians? all that cry Lord, Lord, that is, profess the name of Christ, but deny the only certain Rule to come to the knowledge of his Law? such as were the Gnostics, Carpocratians, Donatists, Socinians, and all the heresies that ever arose since the infancy of the Church; or do you mean by the word Christians, only those, qui faciunt voluntatem Patris, do the will of our heavenly Father, that is, all that hear the Church, or have a certain and common Rule to know what Christ's 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 acknowledged it ere your departure. Admit they had not: can their pattern warrant you (more than it can warrant the Arrians, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc.) 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 Ancestors justly held and called Schismatics. Yet, when they were in their right mood, they admitted it as much as any Roman-catholic, as appears 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 appears by a testimony of Gerson, cited by your friend Bishop Bramhall against himself (in his just vindication of the Church of England, p. 101.) which witnesses that the Greeks departed from the then-Pope with these words, We acknowledge thy power, we cannot satisfy your covetousness, live by yourselves.  
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 politic problem whether he 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 politic problem, that is, a question concerning Government; but since it concerns Government Ecclesiastical, it falls not under the scanning of temporal Politicians. The Christian Commonwealth would be brought to a pretty pass, if the Government of God's Church, so long acknowledged as left by Christ, and continued in the Church 300. years (by their own confession) ere there were any Christian Princes, should anew be called into question by humane policy. But these two words of Scripture Nursing Fathers make it plain to the Doctor (satisfied 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 joseph, 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 affairs to any but the Apostles, Ecclesiastical persons; or that any held Nero, the Heathen Emperor, 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 transferred from their Successors into the hands of secular Princes. But the Doctor has by his former words brought the matter at length to a final 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 controversy, and tells us those very Princes (for all Catholic Princes have already determined the contrary) must decide the truth of the business. As if an Umpire, being to arbitrate a quarrel about the Authority of the Vicechancellor of Oxford, opposed by the Major, his Competitor, should take up the business by saying it was a politic problem, belonging to the Government of the University, and so ought to be decided by none but the Major.   

SECT. 2.  
Of Dr. Hammonds evasion in recurring to the first 300. years, and concerning the humble and docible temper of his Church.  
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 concerns Faith) he is come to treat next of the second part of that first species of mutual Charity, which concerns Faith, to wit, of the particular doctrines in Faith: in which he says he doubts not but to approve himself 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, etc. which is a very plausible and pithy piece of shuffling, expressing a plain tergiversation from approving himself 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 expressed 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 not, how can we judge of them by Scripture, which speaks 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 clear in Scripture and when not? for we see many men, who govern themselves by fancy, think that evident, which another judges to have no appearance of truth. And, for my part, I even despair of bringing clearer proofs from Scripture, than that S. Paul converted jews, and S. Peter Gentiles; which yet you saw could give the nice Doctor no satisfaction.  
Another tergiversation is his standing only to the first 300. years; 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 concerns our quarrel. As if, being to fight a Duel with an Adversary, he would stand to the appointment of no place and time, but only in a wilderness 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 only; which were all called upon other occasions, and so touch not any point of debate between us, except only on the by, and therefore obscurely; the best testimonies out of which have been already objected by him, and solved by us. But why only four? since all Councils are of equal Authority; there being nothing found to authorise the first four, but was found in the fifth, sixth, etc. So that this challenge of the Drs. is all one as if an Arian Heretic 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 engaged himself by this (as he thought) secure grant, further than he imagines. His allowing of four Councils to examine his Faith by, is an acknowledgement that he admits the Authority of Councils as sacred and binding. He must either then show 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 less blot will fall to his share, who rejects an Authority held sacred by himself, without most clear Evidence of a just exception. As he who acknowledges the Authority of Parliament, by admitting the Acts of some as valid Laws, is bound, by the very acknowledgement 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 Only in this latter a far less Evidence will serve the turn, the Authority of Parliament being but humane, whereas the other was held and acknowledged to be sacred. But indeed, the truth is, he 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 authorised supports.  
No candider than the former is his evasion 
C. 8. S. 7.  of being judged by the purest Ages; which in reality signifies only such times wherein nothing was treated against those heresies which afterwards clinged together to compound Protestantism. This is manifest by his admitting 300. years 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 imagined to be first pure, then impure, afterwards pure again, according as the supposition of it suits best for the Doctor's 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 pestered with homebred factions and heresies; which made the Fathers of the Church take pen in hand, vigorously confuting them and some of the Doctor's 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 called a Council, which chanced to treat nothing professedly of the errors afterwards 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 imagined the doctrine of that Council was pure, but the belief 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 do 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 behalf of their Church an unaffected ignorance though they should mistake, being conscious to himself 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 Christ's seamless coat, according to the mode of their ever-changing fancy. Lastly, most vainly do they hope this ruliness in holding to the first 300. years will lead them into all truth, unless they could show 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 be 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 herself to profess 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 weathercock, docibly turning with every wind of doctrine. How do you think the Puritans or any other Sect should in reason yield any Authority to your Church, since she professes herself yet learning her Faith; that is, as yet knows 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 Christ's Faith, to whom the Universal Church may submit herself as docible? Perhaps you will say that one particular Church must sisterly and charitably assist and teach another; that is, though each be ignorant itself, yet (like the blind leading the blind) they must all be supposed mutual Mistress', 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 yourselves new reformed doctrines without 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 Christendom for twelve hundred years, and rely upon your own judgements 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 heroic 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. years; 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 yourself grants; for you confess 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 Doctor's behalf, neither the Apostles nor any Saint in the succeeding Church durst ever own. Neither can the present Catholics, whom some (who neither understand their own, nor Catholic 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 only. For we pretend not Faith certain, but upon a deemed INFALLIBILITY in the Authority assuring it; so as, though they may be supposed unblamable by you for failing in their 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 yourselves uncertain, is such a condiscension of humility, such a prostrating your proper knowledge, as is not only a blindly-cap●ivating your Judgement, but even an utter renouncing all judgement, prudence and common sense; 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 itself; and is all one as if a man should say, For any thing I know, such a one may lie in what he tells me; yet nevertheless I will strongly persuade myself that all he says is most certainly true.  
Yet this humility the Doctor calls here a 
C. 8. Sect. 8  special mark of the Church of England's Reformation. And surely you have reform well; since you have not only reformed the Unity you before enjoyed, into distractions; the Faith you formerly professed into new-fangled misbeleefes: but your former reason and judgement into present folly and fancy. What is said of your accepting the four Councils, etc. may also be applied 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 error. The pious words in your own behalf with which you close up your Chapter, spoken in an Elegiac tone, are very moanfully moving words out of a pulpit; rhetorical enough for women, not rational enough to satisfy any prudent man. You profess you would preserve the Unity of the Apostolical Faith and primitive practices, as entire as Christ's 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 Christ's body or garments, I see no such great respect in you or your Church's doctrine allowed towards holy Relics, 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.  
An examination of some common notes produced by Dr. Hammond, to particularise his Clients to be no Schismatics.  
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 extern Peace, or Communion Ecclesiastical.  
And first, he alleges for his plea, that they have retained the right form of Government, 
C. 9 Sect. 5  etc. 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 appears C. 8. S. 2. is by the Doctor's 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, return 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 sense. Surely Doctor Hammond is more methodical in his Sermons; otherwise, the World must needs look upon him as another S. john Baptist, because he preaches in a Wilderness.  
But let us follow him through all his Mazes, distinguished by no orderly path, but what his own inconstant and desultorious tract 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 inferior Officers in every Church. As if the Arian Heretics, who denied Christ to be God, and almost all heresies that ever broke from God's 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 Superiors, and taught you doctrines contrary to the Order of God's Church; without whose order, much less 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 Church's Government, which is, of the King being its Head and Supreme in Ecclesiastical matters. This is the sum and top of your Church's 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, we charge you of Schism and breach of Communion Ecclesiastical: for in so doing you cut God's Church into as many single headed, and consequently diverse-bodied and disparate Congregations, as there are Kingdoms in Christendom. Show 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. years; show us that all that time the Church was ordered by the Emperor's 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 self your by testimonies out of the following ages, unless you will 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 graveled 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 Governors, 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 itself in first, secondly, thirdly, etc. upon all occasions, though both his first, second, and third be the selfsame formal thing.  
His third plea is, that they observe the circumstances 
Ibid.  necessary to the assembling themselves for public worship. First, that of place (Churches.) Secondly, that of time (the Lord's day, primitive Festivals.) As if all Schismatics in the World do not meet at some set times, and in some appointed and set places. Thirdly, Forms of prayer and praises (almost all out of our Mass and Breviary.) Celebration of Sacraments (only five of them being quite abolished, and three quarters of the sixth.) Sacramentals, Copes and Surplisses, which you might by the same principles, call rags of Rome. Preaching (against Christ and his Church; such doctrine as none ever sent you or your first Forefathers to preach.) Cathechising (infecting and imbuing tender and easy 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 well, 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 bind all to these performances. Doubtless all Sects in the world impose some obligation upon their subjects to keep them together, else they could not be 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 shown in my answer to the foregoing 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 dissolved, your slack-sinewed 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 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 communion 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 innocence. What does the Dr? he takes no notice of what is objected; but in stead of that, only 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 he says nothing That they now obey their Bishops he tells us, but why they obeyed not him, or why they cast out his Authority, whom they held before to be the Chief-Bishop, that's a matter not worth clearing. The Pope's Antichrist, and there's an end.  
Then he clears his side from Schism, because they assemble in Churches: but he never considers that we charge them with plain Sacrilege for meeting there, and deatining those places (anciently ours, and built by us) out of the true owner's hands, and applying them to profane uses: All that with him, is very laudable, and needs no clearing either from injustice, or sacrilege. He clears their Church of Schism, because they observe yet some Festivals (and the like may be 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 condemns, as shall presently be showed.  
He clears his Church of Schism, by alleging they observe some form of Prayer: but never takes notice that the crime we 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 only taking out of it those slighter things which might satisfy the lowersized devotion of their reformed spirits, and was enough to serve them to cry, Lord, Lord.  
He brings, as a proof of their innocence from schism, that they have celebration of Sacraments, Preaching and Catechising, etc. But thinks it not worth clearing, that of seven Sacraments they have retained only 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 do but preach, pray, and catechise, let it be what it will, it is a certain note that they are no schismatics.  
Lastly, he puts as an argument to clear them from schism, that they have some Discipline to bind to these performances, etc. (that is, they use some little wit or means to maintain their schism, and hold their tribe together▪) but he waves that for which only 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 only, 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 alleges, as whose retaining, he makes account frees their▪ Church from schism▪ are such pitiful ordinary businesses, so indifferent to all or most schismatics and heretics, that they can no way particularise them to be none, or exempt them from the common crew of their fellows. For what schism ever arose, but had some kind of government or discipline, had their meetings in some set places, at some set times, prayed in their own new way, preached, taught and catechised their own doctrine. So as the Doctor might with ●ar better Logic have concluded the Protestants no schismatics, because they have all noses on their faces; this being common to Catholics as well as Schismatics; and so might seem partly to excuse them: whereas the other, of admitting such points and no more (which are the Doctor's notes of his Church) are disclaimed by all Catholics, and common to almost all Schismatics. Nay some schismatics and heretics 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 heresy against Christ's divinity) had twenty times more marks of a Church in all other things, than the Drs could ever pretend to.  
Fourthly, he assures us, that the Pope's 
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. years ago, when Pope Gregory sent to convert our Forefathers to Christ's faith, as yourself and your followers grant, then how is it an usurpation of the present Romanists? Were we, who now live, alive 900. years ago? or are they who lived 900. years ago, alive now? But in regard you only say it, and bring no proof, I shall not trouble myself in vouchsafing 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 yourself ridiculous to any man that, understands either one or the other. For since the institution of Ceremonies is one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or things indifferent, left to the ordering of God's Church, as both the 20th Article of the new English Creed expressly determines, and all moderate Protestants hold, I wonder why our Church should not, when she saw convenient▪ ordain new Ceremonies (and the like may be 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 yourselves 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.  
Of Doctor Hammonds charitableness in admitting all to his Communion, and our pretended Uncharitableness for refusing to go to their Assemblies.  
IN the fifth place the Doctor professes, like a good charitable man as he 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 profess 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 Heretics) yet your kind hearted Church cannot but friendly entertain them. You keep open house for all comers. The doctrine of Oportet haereses esse, There must be heresies, is changed by your boon behaviour into It is impossible there should be heresies. For whereas the world heretofore understood those to be Heretics, who held the letter of the Scripture, and some points of Christianity, but denied others, which were the tenets of the Universal Church at that time; you have now quite changed the former notion; and think none to be excluded from Communion, that is, none to be Heretics that bear the name of a Christian; so as though they deny all points of Christ's doctrine, yet profess Christ's name, and the outward letter of the Scripture, let them come, and welcome. Anabaptists, Brownists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Carpocratians, perhaps Arians; nay even Simon Magus himself; all these sewed together only with the airy 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 profess Christ's 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 courtesy as you please, but not a dram of humility, obedience, nor subjection to Superiors: These peace-preserving virtues would quite break the neck of Schism and Faction. If there be any such overpowering Authority, though never so long settled in possession over the Country, and acknowledged and believed by all Christians, in never so many ages, to be 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 your Assemblies that acknowledge the foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles. You love mightily to talk plausible words in the air, and in general, as if you made account your Readers should be all fools, 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 only to it, and make it their armour-house to oppugn Christ and his Church. Arians and Socinians most of all, and yet they can deny Christ's Godhead: So as by this means indeed, you will have store of communicants. Is it the true sense of the Scripture? then truth being one, and falsehood manifold, if their interpretation be different from yours, both cannot be true, and consequently both acknowledge not the foundation left by Christ: for, falsifying his word, cannot be that foundation. Again, if this be the foundation left by Christ; you must have some certain and known Rule to come by the true sense 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 sense of Scripture, but restrained to fundamentals? still the same difficulty remains, unless 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 unbecoming a grave Divine. Or is this Foundation perhaps the solid sense of Christ's law written and planted in the tables of men's hearts by the Apostles, and thence by a welllinked chain of Universal Tradition derived to our times? If so, you must admit only Catholics, and exclude all the rest; since only they hold this foundation. Or rather indeed, since you deny this way of bringing down Faith to be sufficient, which Catholics hold as a certain and infallible Rule, it follows, that if you will go 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 remains then that you are willing to admit all those that shall say they have the Foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles; and than you cannot doubt but to have the brotherly fellowship of all heretics and schismatics in the world, that have been, are, or shall be; since all pretend strongly in general terms to acknowledge that Foundation.  
Nor is he less devoutly charitable in the 
C. 9 S. 6.  following words, that they earnestly desire to be admitted to the like freedom 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 be so enured to a drowsy▪ sounding vein of preaching Quodlibets, till a man hath hummed and drummed away all reason out of his head. Speak sense, man; and let your pretended Charity come clad in Truth, or else I must justly suspect it to be nothing but Pharisaical hypocrisy. I hate contradictions, though told me in never so pious a tone. Was it ever heard that any Catholic denied you Communion, if you were capable of that blessing of one heart (the same interior belief) and one lip (the same exterior profession.) To what purpose then are those seemingly pious words produced. Leave off paying us with this hollow language, empty of sense; render yourselves capable of that blessing in your actions; renounce and repent your disobedience to your so-long-acknowledged Superiors: Repeal your schismatical ordinances against Christ's Church: Reacknowledge 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 years in the firm and undivided Unity of the same belief. Do, I say, this efficaciously, and then you shall be freely, cordially, and with open arms received into Communion by them; who would willingly (though they lovingly reprehend you, to make you reflect on your errors) not only 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 he proves first: because the Pope excommunicated all those Catholics 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 God's Church, to enjoin the Faithful to abstain from the Communion of those, who maintained a different, that is, an heretical doctrine. The simpler sort of Catholics were gulled by you to believe you had only turned into English what was in Latin 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 error into which your false persuasions 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 sense, that, holding you heretics, we should let the poor people go to your Assemblies, to be taught false doctrine; Nay even Nature itself seems to interdict such an unnatural commerce; that Catholics, who held the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy of Divine Institution; Mass, and the rest of our doctrines, from which you receded, sacred, should go to your Congregations, to hear the first railed 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 yourselves 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 Pope's Excommunication, it is visibly consequent, that they were cast out, and cannot be said to separate. Sure it must be 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 rather violently broken, in the time of King Henry the eigthth, King Edward's Protector, and all the first ten years of this Queen. To which, though enough, and more then enough has been said, yet I will once more press 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 Catholic 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-acknowledged Authority. So far for Government. Now for Doctrines and Practices. You once believed and practised as the Roman Catholic Church, to wit, when you were in her: That you reform you confess; and C. 7. S. 14. call your reformations, recessions from the doctrines and practices of Rome. A recession therefore was made by you, both from the former Government, as also the former doctrines and practices: But a recession is a voluntary departure, as plain sense evidences; therefore you made a voluntary departure from the formerly-acknowledged government, doctrines and practices 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 only be peculiar to Dr. Hammond.  
But I perceive the Doctor thinks there is no Schism, till the Pope have actually excommunicated: as if there might not be a criminal departure from the former Faith, its Rule, Sacraments, and the Church's 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 yourselves 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 schismatics) 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: Yourself confessing that you rejected Roman Catholike● from your assemblies, and censured them upon thei● 
S. 5.  avowed contumacy against the orders of your Church▪ Let us know then, why our Church might not do the same, and with much more reason to you, who were once members of her, and whose recession from her orders, and contumacious persisting still, yourself will witness; show us, I say, why she had not as great Authority ●ver those, who were once hers, as your● claims 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 disavow that contumacy, which obstructs your Communion.  
His second Reason why we hindered the external Communion (as he calls that confusion▪ 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 belief of Doctrines, or Approbations of Practices, which they neither believe nor approve of. The question is not, Mr. Doctor, whether you believe 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 God's mind, than all the world before them; and yet, when they had done, acknowledged themselves but fallible in their contrary belief; that is, uncertain whether they or their teachers were in the right; and is not this a wise ground for any scholar 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 show, opposed you can in reason judge any other) than it is not innocency in you, nor a sufficient excuse for your not-Communion, that you do 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 misleads you from the truth; usurping the office of your spiritual guide the holy Catholic Church. Free 
C. 9 S. 7.  the soul than first of that vice, and then you'll stand in no need to offer violence to your minds, nor be afraid to make an unsound confession; the fear of which you pretend for your excuse. But of this I have said already more than 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 hover in the air. But what are those grounds in particular, by which he will contest his doctrines? he tells us in his last Paragrapraph that they are proofs from Scriptures, or the first Writers (those of the first 300. years) or the four General Councils. But let us ask first by whose interpretation of Scripture he will contest his Negatives? he will tell you, by his own, or some few others like himself, which (not professing themselves Infallible) he must tell you also he 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 God's Church? But let us ask whether he thinks our Saviour's command to hear the Church, be a ground by which all Christians ought to be concluded. Perhaps, after much shaking his head between loathness to reject our Saviour's words, and unwillingness to grant any thing to the Church, he will answer, yes; the Church of the first 300. years. Then ask him again, who taught all good Christians, that they should hear the Church of the first 300. years only, and then stop their ears against her perpetually for the future? he is graveled. Again, ask him whether those first three century of years treat of all late▪ sprung Negatives? He 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 most primitive times. Ask him next, why he recurs to such obscure times, and stark dumb in our present controversies? and he 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. chooses obscurity for the Patron of his cause, which can be no Sun to reveal truth, though it may serve for a dark hole to hide falsehood. Neither can he from his grounds pretend otherwise to contest his Negatives, than by mere negative arguments, so as the inference must be this; Our points of doctrine were not contradicted by the Writers of the first 300. years, 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 days; next, that all which was debated then, is come down certainly to our times. Neither of which he will be able to manifest. Will not any judicious Reader think such Rules as these like to bind all good Christians to be concluded by them? Dr. Hammonds interpretations of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, that say nothing, or else very little 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 Doctor's cause, as is imaginable their present circumstances should invite or give them occasion. To end then this Chapter with the Doctor's words something altered, these pitiful evasions, and unwarrantable 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.  
Our pretended Uncharitableness in judging and despising others, retorted upon the Objecters.  
IN his tenth Chapter he 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 he very charitably disclaims in behalf of their Church, and would very courteously present us with them. But, to omit his pious formalities, and come to grounds. Do you think it is uncharitableness to judge as our Saviour judged; that is, to believe what he said to be true? Our Saviour's judgement is, that if any one do not hear 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 terms as our Saviour himself hath laid down to us, I hope you will impute it to us as a great moderation, and not as uncharitableness. Now, that you did not hear the Church, when you broke from ours (and much less since) is most evident: For your first Reformers most manifestly receded from the former acknowledged Government, Rule of Faith, Sacraments, Doctrines, and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, of which you were then a member, as hath been shown and acknowledged; and she teaching them the contrary then, it could not be said they heard her, when they began their Reformations. Neither did they join themselves with any other Church, whom they might be said to hear; nor was this doctrine taught by the very Church of England itself in the former age; since their Forefathers held and taught them a contrary belief. Evident than 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 practices, 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 only true Christian Congregation. How can we then, seeing evidently they heard not any Church, judge otherwise then that our Saviour's 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; unless perhaps you think or hope the crime is less, because there is now a greater multiplicity of offenders, which harden one another to obstinacy by their number.  
Next, is it uncharitableness not to renounce that Rule of Faith, in which clearly is founded ●ll the Certainty we have of Christ's Law, and all the hopes of our salvation; to wit, the inerrability of our Church, believed by our Ancestors, ever since Christ's doctrine first dawn'd to the dark world? Yet this which witnesss your doctrine heretical, we must absolutely renounce, ere we can deem you other than Heretics: Either we must judge the highest Tribunal in the world, upon whose living voice we build all Faith and true sense of the Scriptures, to have lied; that is, we must judge our highest Superiors, Pastors, Teachers, and Church to be erroneous in Faith, and heretical, or else we must judge you our equals at most, and (till you outlawed yourselves) 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 Saviour's Body and Blood, our Holy of Holies, reviled and abhorred by your 
Art. 31. of the Church of England  Church, as a blasphemous fiction and pernicious 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 Heresy; either your Faith then, or ours, under penalty of maintaining a contradiction, must necessarily be held as heresy. Now comes this Doctor, and accuses us for the most uncharitable men in the world, because we will not judge our own Faith heretical, and so free theirs. Remember our Saviour's words (Mr. Dr.) He that believes not, is judged already; Join 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 he be certain he believes 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-judged unbeliever; or rather, on the contrary, he must make conscience of not judging him, for such; but, by a colloguing piece of courtesy, draw him into eternal perdition, and himself follow him, for his uncharitable connivance. 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 be both Heretics and Schismatics; since one of us must be such, and he has a good mind to give us these new Titles, whom he 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 tree-leaves them so much light of apprehension, as not to dare to call us schismatics; so the acknowledged antiquity of our doctrine, ever persisting the selfsame, and the confessed innovation of theirs frights them, though unwillingly from styling us Innovators and Heretics.  
Fourthly, our judging you, may indeed seem to be error, but malice and uncharitableness 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 dreamed of▪ as at present; you cannot object that we invented new grounds to conclude so hardly of you in our thoughts; nor that they were purposely and maliciously aimed at your then-unhatched Congregation. So as you may, if you please, pretend that all the grounds, on which we hold our Faith, God's word, and its true Interpretation, are erroneous, and therefore that our so judging of you, necessarily springing from those Grounds, is an error; yet malice or uncharitableness you cannot call it, since we 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 thinks the zeal of our Missionaries to reduce others from the ill state we conceive them in, with daily hazarding, and often laying down actually their lives for that end, both in this Country and many others, should transfer the charge of Uncharitableness to your colder part●; for sure it can be no less to judge them uncharitable, who so readily and willingly lay down their dearest lives, to redeem the souls of their very enemies and persecutors from a believed danger. Yet this is the Doctors Goliah's sword (as he calls it) wherewith he threatened to give a fatal 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 himself, of his own temper towards the rest of God's Church, acknowledged by himself to be such, and that in the point of Rebaptisation of Infants; which, though held stiffly by himself; yet his charity so moderated his zeal, that he expressed his indifferency in those alleged words; Neither had he reason to deny Communion to other Catholics for a private opinion only, till the Church had interposed 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 Schismatics and Heretics, by all the Churches in communion with the See of Rome; as were the Protestants? Unless he can show this, he 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 alleged to an end so inconsonant to his Doctrine, without quotation of any place, Book, Chapter, or Epistle. But Mr. Hammond will have the thing between us to be only differences 
C. 10. S. 3.  in opinion; and indeed if that supposition, that the only 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 he or I should trouble ourselves 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 ourselves with thinking whether there be a Heaven or no, which we 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, he tells us, we beg the question in calling them Schismatics, because they deny it, and offer to prove the contrary. Certainly Mr. Hammond has been so long in the Pulpit, that he has forgot the fashion of the Universities, where there is no disputation, but the one affirms, 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 proofs, we have already shown; and, till you can show us a greater Authority to acquit you, than is the Church's 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 be denied, however you may pretend the intention or cause of it to be doubtful or obscure.  
Ere I leave this first part, of judging other●● I desire the Reader to fancy in his own mind as perfect a Schismatic as can be imagined, and therefore deservedly cast out by the Church▪ which done, let him read this Doctor's tenth Chapter, and he shall easily perceive that he has not brought one word for himself, which the other justly-condemned schismatic 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 me 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 we do 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 she must be a schismatic herself; whereas we did not cast them out, but upon their avowed contumacy against the orders of our Church, which the Doctor 
C. 9 S. 5.  himself holds as a reason sufficient for the Protestant to excommunicate Catholics. Where you see the first Proposition can only 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 be 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 Laws and Customs of the Commonwealth; yet notwithstanding they must not punish him and his company; or if they do, they are guilty of faction, sedition, dissension, and despising their fellows. What King now could be so hardhearted as to punish a Rebel defending himself with such a wise, solid, and rational plea? The Doctor confessed that they rejected the Authority of the Pope, formerly acknowledged to be Supreme; that they receded from the doctrines and practices 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 do, 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?  
After this the Doctor crowds together a great company of advantages of our Religion, with which we prepossess our subjects; though the Doctor mistakes in some; and which he says are so many reasons, why they do 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 believe in telling them the sense of God's word, if not the Church? such pitiful guessing Soothsayers as you? Are not our Saviour's words Hear the Church; and I am with you ever till the end of the world, plain 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 do not rely even upon your private Authority? so natural and necessary is it there should be an Authority to govern weak people.  
Thirdly, the doctrine of infallibility. That is, we tell them Faith is certain, and hath certain grounds: a grievous accusation!  
Fourthly, the shutting up the Scriptures in an unknown Language. 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 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 years ago? or for them that lived ten years ago, to know what was held 20▪ years since, and so forth. Especially, Faith not being a mere speculation, but showing itself in practice, which proclaims 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 imagined we 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 we are in some sense 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 Catholics? What Laws make it Treason to become a Protestant, as they do to be reconciled to the Catholic Religion? What Oaths are imposed on Protestants to renounce their Faith under pain of high Treason and forfeiture of their Estates, as in those of Supremacy and Abjuration against Catholics? Read over the large Volume of Penal Statutes made in the days of your Dominion, and you shall find, that Catholics can neither be married, nor baptised, nor taught at home, nor sent abroad, nor maintained by their parents while they live, nor buried, when they die, without incurring the danger of a Praemunire, or some other severe penalty. In all these I am confident your kind of Protestancy never endured the least punishment; but a light cross is enough to overload a weak patience, and every small discountenancing makes those that have enjoyed a long case, cry out, persecution. I see your parchment Church shrinks and ●na●kles at the sight of the fire, while the Catholic remains firm and unconsum'd, nay grow● clearer in the midst of it. And yet I do not intend to deny, many of you have been very great losers by these late Revolutions, but only to say your sufferings are to be referred to a civil, not religious account, or at least that nothing, even in your own judgement, essential to Religion, is persecuted, or so much as denied in England; for Bishops, and Service-book, and King's Supremacy you must not call essential, without contradicting your own both profession and practice, 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 we had rather wed our belief to that sense of God's word, which Fathers, Councils, and the perpetual doctrine and practice of God's 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 falsehood.  
For these prejudices instilled into the hearts of Catholics, the Doctor and his Church spare us very charitably, and are far from casting us out of the Church. For God's sake, Mr. Dr. whither would you have cast us? Would you throw the house out of the windows? I mean the Church, God's house, out of the window of Schism, which you broke in the side of it.  
Again, let us but see how artificial, nay incomparable nonsense this Dr. speaks. I conceive nothing can be cast out of a thing that was never in it; show us then that▪ there was once a constituted Church of Protestants, governed by the King as Supreme Head, and holding their doctrines and practices, in which the Roman Catholic once was, but receded from that Doctrine and Government, and invented this new Religion which he holds at present. Unless the Catholics were once thus in you, how could you cast them out? What a weakness is this to think that Robin Hood, Little john, and a few Outlaws, do 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 Laws, and in which Commonwealth, 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 be more chargeable of judging and despising others. Suppose, Mr. Doctor, we, who are sons of the Catholic 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 had been impossible, unless you had first both judged, despised, and preferred yourselves above your Supreme Governors, the Church and all your Forefathers. The chief Government, 
C. 7. S. 5.  impower'd actually over you in Ecclesiastical Affairs, you rejected and cast out of this Island. Next, many of your wise Brethren since, preaching, teaching, and writing whole Books, to show that that Governor is Antcichrist, the Beast in the Apocalypse, and what not? Could these things be done without judging and despising? You made Reformations and recessions from the former Church's doctrine, cried out she had erred, was a Strumpet, the Whore of Babylon, impious, sacrilegious, idolatrous. Was not this the most rash judging, the most venomous railing at and reviling of God's sacred Spouse, formerly your Mistress and Mother, that ever was foamed out of the mouth of madness itself? Again, the whole world, whom you esteemed, before, good Christians, and all your Ancestors in England, condemned, by their contrary belief, your new Reformed Doctrine: And, do you think your innovators could have broached their opposite doctrines without both judging and despising all this vast Authority? Your Charity then, Mr. Doctor, in this point, can be only imagined to consist in this, that you have not judged and despised yourselves; for all else, that you thought formerly to deserve any Authority, you both judged, despised, rejected, reviled, and condemned. In a word, our judging you, is our subscribing in our own thoughts to that Verdict, which the Church has passed against you, whose tribunal was held by all the whole Christian world (and yourselves 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 mere calumny; and profess ourselves bound to honour every one according to his quality and degree; the reasons indeed, which you produce to clear yourself from Schism, we despise, as worse than ridiculous; A Paradox in a matter indifferent, if maintained ingeniously, deserves its commendations: but the most manifest absurdities that can be imagined, and in which are interessed men's salvations, such as is the renouncing an Authority granted to be the most ancient, most sublime, most sacred, in the world, upon fallible, incertain, and unevident grounds; and only sustained 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, unless perhaps, it be their falling below ou● contempt. Of the mixed temper of these is the constitution of your Book; which shows that you have been used to row at your own dull pleasure in the shallow and softly-murmuring current of a Sermon; but never launched with a well▪ rigged Ship of Reason into the boisterous Main 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 me temptation or excuse further to enlarge on this matter. No truly, I could never 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 only 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.  
He adds, that he professes not to know any other branch of Schism, or colour of fastening that guilt, upon our Church, made use of by any, which he 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 we as freshly, and more chiefly, charge upon you, than any of the ●est.   

The Last SECT.  
Our Objection that the pretended Church of England is now invisible, maintained and asserted to be just.  
SChism being thus established, as legitimate and laudable, the Patron of it resolus 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 seems 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.  offered from thence he forms (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, we both agree, 
C. 11. S. 2.  In answer to which, the Doctor alleges first That a member of the English Church was not under this guilt of not communicating with some one visible Church twenty years ago; and consequently unless he have contracted this guilt since by commission or omission of something, he can no more be charged with the Crime now, than formerly. All this while the Doctor is in a mistake, and runs on very currently, but quite out of his way. For we do not object this present condition to them, as a crime or guilt (rather that which was twenty years 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 years ago, 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 disappeared and vanished into Aire. Our advantage, not taken, but offered, from thence is this, that as before they had a show 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 fairy 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. imagines, since a new and stronger motive offered, deserves in reason a new, distinct, and fresh proposal. I grant therefore, Mr. Dr. that it is not your choice, crime, or offence, to be in this misery, though it be your fault that you were brought into i●; it bring a connatural punishment, orderly subsequent to the vice of Schism, as shall afterwards be shown. And the present invisibility of your Church is never the less true and real, though we admit it be your misfortune, not your crime; since a ship may as well be cast away in an unavoidable storm, as by the negligence of the Pilot.  
Neither do I take it to be the saddest part of your infelicity (as you call it) but rather the greatest happiness that God's sweetly-chastising mercy could have sent you, that, by weighing your present dissolution, and the causes of it, you may retrieve your wander, and recollect all your scattered and distracted members into the ever-firmly United Body of the holy Catholic Church.  
Thirdly (for the Doctor was so eagerly 
C. 11 S. 3.  zealous to clear his twenty-years-ago Protestant, that he put first and thirdly, but quite forgot secondly) he runs on in his error, that we 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, (says 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 only defence and excuse, when we 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 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, etc. 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 Err 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 liable to error, I see no reason why he should lose the certain possession of present goods for maintaining an uncertain opinion: especially since he holds salvation can be had in other Sects, as appears by Dr. Hammonds admitting all whom he 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 governed, whilst it instigates them to profess with their own so great disadvantage and loss, what they had no obligation to hold; for none can be obliged to the belief of a point which himself & those who propose it are uncertain whether it be true or no. Though (if I be not misinformed) the greater part of your suffering-fellow-Protestants have had more wit, and most commonly were put out upon other pretences than their Religion.  
Thus▪ far the Doctor hath proceeded clearing himself 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 confess they came, and of which they protested theirs to be a member. 
C. 11. S. 5.   
In the next place he tells us, that as yet, Blessed be God, the Church of England is not invisible, it is preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained, and multitudes rightly baptised, 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 fallen off, which are enough to show of what metal their Church was made; and whether more have fallen 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 jurisdiction; it follows, that if their Bishops and Presbyters have now no jurisdiction, than the Protestants have neither lawful mission, preaching, hearing, faith, nor consequently, Church. Now, that they can claim no jurisdiction, follows out of their own grounds; for when we urge them upon what Authority they cast off the former Ecclesiastical Superior, governing God's Church in chief, they run for their defence, to the secular Power, to which they attribute supreme jurisdiction in matters Ecclesiastical within this Island; It is acknowledged (saith the Dr. C. 7. S. 2.) that the Papal Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs, was both by Acts of Convocation of the Clergy, and of Parliament, cast out of this Kingdom. Thus you see he recurs to a power merely secular, in the Parliament, for renouncing and abolishing a spiritual power and Jurisdiction, held before, greater than ever the Protestant Prelacy was imagined. Merely secular, I say; for the Doctor confesses here, that it is easy 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 easy to be determined, since they saw the gravest Patriot in the Kingdom in danger of death, for holding against the King's new pretended Title; and many others, for the same respect, most cruelly persecuted. A Parliament therefore merely of Seculars, and those such as can in no wise be presumed free, was held by you of sufficient Authority to renounce a Jurisdiction, deemed formerly much higher, and known to be almost ten times longer settled in possession than your Prelacy; I see not therefore why a secular power should not be, in your grounds, sufficient to abolish a jurisdiction, which only leaned and relied on a secular support.  
But what was done in King Henry's days, being disannuled again by both the spiritual and secular power in Queen Mary's Reign, must necessarily be held of you invalid, if you will go 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 Father's 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 knows how) jurisdiction; 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 jurisdiction; Since then, the present Secular Power has put a stop to your father Ordination, and disannuled your former jurisdiction, your own grounds conclude you de facto no Church; for if you have no jurisdiction, you can have no influence of power over the Laity; and so no spiritual Common▪ wealth made up of Bishop, as Head and Pastor, and of the Laity, 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 itself, which you pretend, may be justly extinguished. For, since your Jurisdiction confessedly depends on the secular Authority, it follows, if this be suspended or abolished, that must needs share in the same fate: Now, all the world agrees, that not only the possession of a secular power may be interrupted by force, but the Right itself in time be absolutely lost; and the new Government, however at first introduced, 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 Catholics, they claiming a Jurisdiction underived from the secular power.  
In vain therefore would it be to tell us their Character remains, and therefore they are still Bishops and Presbyters, since the character can only entitle them to a name, the thing being gone, to wit, their power of jurisdiction, and consequently their Mission; For if they have no Authority to teach and preach more than the Laity, they are levelled into an equal pitch with them; so as now they cannot be said to be a body, but a company of mutually distracted 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 we object to you for being an invisible Church (which you run upon in your 5. Sect.) but that which yourself confess 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 Logic, that in the next paragraph, you think, though Bishops be abolished, 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 reduced into an equally-leveled Anarchy, yet as long as it happens not through your fault, then are still a Church; As if Doctor Hammond should say, though his body were cut into millions of incoherent Atoms, 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 God's Church are compacted into a Whole by Order, and as much depend upon Spiritual Superiors, having power to teach and preach Christ's Law, as the Commonwealth doth on Secular Magistrates to preserve their temporal Laws, 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 baffled and persecuted (which yet you have spent this whole Chapter, except only the first Paragraph, to prove.) so needs no such great and large disproose, to manifest that that which is so much against men's wills, should be their Choice and Crime. Yet we may justly impute your Church's ruin 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 jurisdiction 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 derived from the Apostles by their means; proffering that they, in courteons' recompense, will acknowledge Rome to be 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 only to teach and preach Catholic Doctrine, and ordain others to do the same; to govern the Catholic flock, and to preserve them in the anciently received Unity of Faith. The Authority to do these could come indeed from us, and so if any who pretend to have received jurisdiction from us, continue to execute and govern themselves by 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 jurisdiction 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 Church's Enemies, Preaching an opposite Doctrine to the Church, which you pretend to have impower'd you, and ordaining others to do the same.  
Evident it is that the Roman Catholic Church, which is the only spiritual power you can think to have any jurisdiction or Mission from, never gave you this Authority, wherefore it must come to you from the mere secular Power; on this Power therefore 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 only 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 forms of Government should have their ever-limited period; and discovering the professors and Governors of it to be none of those to whom our Saviour promised his perpetual assistance to the end of the world. How much happier than would you be, if leaving this fleeting and unbodied shadow, you would return and unite yourselves to the Catholic Church, Which, enjoying this promise from our Saviour of an indefectible perpetuity, not only experiences the certain faithfulness of that promise in a large continuance of 1600. years, but also sees with Evidence, perhaps more than scientifical, that the walls of this Jerusalem are built upon such strong foundations, that the Church, and the Authority and Jurisdiction of her Governors 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 Governors of the Church, till we 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 undermined by human policy. Let then her enemies, though even Princes, rage's as much as they please, nay even bandy and conspire together to subdue this freeborn King's Daughter to their profane yoke; her Jurisdiction, as it ever hath, so will it ever remain secure and inviolate, being independent of them, and (by reason of the state of Eternity, her end and aim) of a superior order to their Authority; which was instituted only for the rightly dispencing the transitory goods of this world.  
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 supersede all necessity of making it up, I conceive to aim 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 shown: 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, we 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 be 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 extremest 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 persuade himself and his friends to return to this Rule of Faith, the Church's Infallibility, which only can unite us in the same steadfast belief of Christ's Doctrine; and to acknowledge the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome; in the acknowledgement of which, consists the constant unity of Church-government; than not only we, but all the Angels and Saints in heaven, who rejoice at the conversion of sinners, shall join in exalting Jubilees for the Blessed and long wished for return of òur wand'ring and self-disinherited Brethren. The former of these (if Mr. Hammond will not believe 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 Pope's Supremacy, is defined in the Florentine Council, subscribed to both by the Greek and Latin 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 expressed in these words, We 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 Successor to S. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and truly Christ's 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 Catholic 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 Church, 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 extrinsical practices, to re-ingraft their dry and sapless branch, which now lies withering, into her ever-flourishing 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 Errors, and honour his ill grounded reasons, as of richest value; which, by stirring up others to detest them, and show 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 throws she was first born to Christ, her Spouse; at whose breasts she sucked the first milk of his Doctrine, and from whose arms and ever-cherishing embraces, first by the malignity of an ill-governed passion, next by humane policy, she has been so long separated.   
FINIS.   

DOWN-DERRY: OR Bishop BRAMHAL'S Just Vindication of the Church of England refuted.  
MY choice at first directed me, rather to answer Mr. Hammond, than my Lord of Derry; having observed his Book not only to bear a greater vogue in the world, but to be inwardly furnished with Arguments more suitable to the profession of a Divine; But after I had advanced past the midway of my journey, I met some Protestant friends, who, though formerly they had still cried up the Doctor, yet soon as I told them, in confidence, that an Answer to his Schism would instantly be ready for the the Press, they immediately began to extol the Bishop, and demand either a present Reply to him, or else they should not spare to conclude the Victory their own. When I had expressed how weak and unreasonable their discourse was, which, if admitted, would always judge him to have the right cause, that speaks the last word. I parted with a promise; if, in stead of that sport, which he far more than the other, tempts a wit-at leisure to make with him, they would accept of a short Refutation of the substantial passages, I should not fail to endeavour their satisfaction: which thus I perform.  
Reading, with some diligence, the Bishop's Book, I find, that as there is much commendable in it for industry, so is it exposed to an unavoidable Check of being Patron to an ill Cause; whence it may be a pattern of wit and labour, but little assistance to the truth, further than by showing how weak Error is. But, not to spend time and paper in vain, let us state the controversy clearly, that it may be seen how strongly and pertinently his Discourse proceeds; Not that I intent minutely to examine his whole Work, whereof the far greater part is little or nothing to our controversy, as will appear by the bare stating the Question; but only to say enough for him whom the substance can content, without engaging into unnecessary and circumstantial disputes.  
He begins his Book, telling us nothing can be objected with more colour of truth against the Church of England, than that they have withdrawn themselves from obedience to the Vicar of Christ, and separated from the Communion of the Catholic Church. And that this crime is justly charged upon his Church, not only with colour, but with undeniable evidence of fact, will appear by the very position of the Case; and the nature of his Exceptions.  
As for the first, it is unquestionably certain, and universally assented to by all Protestants, who understand any thing, that at the beginning of Henry the eighths' Reign, nay at his first courting his Protestant Mistress, the Church of England agreed with that of Rome, and all the rest of her Communion, in two Points, which were then, and are still the Bonds of Unity betwixt all her Members▪ One concerning Faith, the other, Government.  
For Faith, her Rule was, that the Doctrines, which had been inherited from their Forefathers, as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles, were solely to be acknowledged for obligatory, and nothing in them to be changed.  
For Government, her Principle was, that Christ had made St. Peter First, or Chief, or Prince of his Apostles; who was to be the first Mover under him in the Church, after his departure out of this world, and to whom all others, in difficulties concerning matters belonging to the universal, either Faith or Government, should have recourse; And that the Bishops of Rome, as Successors of St. Peter▪ inherited from him this privilege, in respect of the Successors of the rest of the Apostles; and actually exercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began.  
It is no less evident, that in the days of Edward the sixth, Queen Elizabeth, and her Successors, neither the former Rule of Unity of Faith, nor this second of Unity of Government (which is held by the first) have had any power in that Congregation, which the Protestants call the English Church. This is our chief objection against you.  
As for us, our Tenet is, That those Churches, who continue in Communion with the Roman, are the only Churches; which, in virtue of the first Principle above mentioned, have the true Doctrine; and, in virtue of the second, the right Government; and, in virtue of both, the unity and incorporation into the Church of Christ, necessary for salvation: And by consequence, We hold them only to make the entire Catholic or Universal Church of Christians; all others, by misbelief or Schism, being excluded.  
Now, because no understanding man can deny this to be the true Charge, the only way for a Protestant to clear his Church from Schism, is to show it not guilty of doing this, either by disproving the former to be the necessary Rule of Unity in Faith, or the latter the necessary Bond of Government; both which, though they sometimes say, yet because in these Books, professedly composed for their Vindication from the guilt of Schism, they, directly and of set purpose, handle neither; it is clear they intent to shuffle, not speak pithily.  
The first Principle (which also includes the truth of the second) we hold by this manifest Evidence, that still the latter Age could not be ignorant of what the former believed; and, as long as it adhered to that method, nothing could be altered in it; which way of assurance carries with it the Testimony of all that are truly called Christians; and this by so ample a memory and succession, as is stronger than the stock of human Government and action: no right of Law or human Ordinances being able to offer so ample, clear, and continued a Title.  
They must remember how their Forefathers, who began that which they call the Reformation, were themselves of this profession before their pretended reform. They ought to weigh what reasons their Ancestors should have had to introduce such an alteration. They must confess themselves guilty in continuing the breach, unless they can allege causes sufficient to have begun it, had the same ancient Religion descended to these days; For the constant belief of the Catholic world both was at the time of your division, and still is, that these Principles are Christ's own ordination, recorded in Scripture, derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our nature is capable of, to attain assurance what was done in Antiquity; Evidences inviolable by any humane either power or proof, except perfect and rigorous demonstration, to which our Adversaries do not so much as pretend, and therefore without further dispute, remain unanswerably convicted of Schism.  
And though after this, it be superfluous to say any thing to any Book, which does not so much as attempt to demonstrate either of these Points false, yet I shall bestow a few thoughts to declare the quality of the Lord of Derry's Arguments, not examining them any further, than to show how little they are to the purpose.  
In his two first Chapters, though there be many things false, and more taken up without proof, yet I will not touch them, because he only pretends to settle the Question, which is already done for my part; And so I will begin my Animadversions, where he begins his Arguments, in the third Chapter.  
His first proof is, because not Protestants, but Roman Catholics themselves made the first separation. 1. If it were so, how does that acquit you? since continuance in a Breach of this nature, which cannot be sodered by time, is as guilty as the very beginning. Now these two Bonds of Unity, being of Christ's own institution, no time can sear the bleeding wound; And this because we hold by the fore-declared strength, they now must have demonstrations to contradict it, as well as the first Separaters.  
2. How does he prove they were not Protestants? because they persecuted Protestants: what then? did not Luther persecute Carolstadius and Zuinglius? do they not now in Germany and other Countries? Lutherans permit no Calvinists; Calvinists no Lutherans. Did not you persecute Puritan and Brownists? Do you not now complain to be persecuted by others? will you make all these, Papists? or why are not they Reformers as well as you? you will say many of these first breakers died Catholics; True, but upon Repeutance. Of Gardiner (whom you press so particularly) it is recorded, that upon his death▪ bed, he said, Peccavi cum Petro, exivi cum Petro, sed nondum flevi cum Petro; and so fell on a bitter weeping for that offence.  
But in a word, is not this renouncing the Pope the most essential point of your Reformation? All the rest your good natured Religion can either embrace or censure; and, as occasion serves, admit or refuse Communion with the deniers of any other Article, never so fundamental, this only is indispensable. Then be sure we never hear you again deny but that they who made this first Breach, had in them the quintessence of your Reformation, and were far less consistent with Catholicism, than your modern younger▪ brother Sectaries are with your kind of Protestancy; since yourselves confess the admittance of the Pope's Authority more destructive to you, than the denial of Prelacy.  
His second Argument is, because in the separation of England from Rome, there was no new Law made, but only their ancient Liberties vindicated.  
The first part is so notoriously false, that I wonder any one can have the face to pronounce it; a Law was made in Henry the 8ths' time, an Oath invented and exacted, by which was given to the King to be Head of the Church, and to have all the power the Pope did at that time possess in England. That this was a new Law none but impudence itself can deny.  
As for the second part, let us see how he proves it. He brings divers allegations, wherein the Pope's pretences were not admitted, as being in the prejudice to the State or Church of England. What is this man about, that he so forgets the question? Do we profess the Pope can pretend no more than his right? or is the question of this or that particular action of the Popes? or does he think a legitimate Authority in common is rejected, when the particular faults of them who are in Authority are resisted? Is Magistracy or Royalty rejected, when Pleas are commenced against Kings or Commonwealths, as going beyond their true Jurisdiction? Yes, but the Pope is expressly denied the Power to do such or such things. Why then, even by this fact he is acknowledged to have power in other things; since to limit an Authority implies an admittance of it in cases to which the restraints extend not.  
But he presses Laws anciently received in our Kingdom. What is his meaning? were not those Laws in force in the beginning of Henry the eighths' Reign? or was his breach but the conservation of these Laws, and we began our Religion there? Are there any of these laws which are not equivalently in France, Spain, Germany; Nay Italy itself? Are none of these therefore Catholics? are they in as little communication with the Pope, as Henry the eighth after his breach, or the Protestants in Q Elizabeth's times? How ridiculous, how impudent a manner of speaking and arguing is this? to force his Readers to renounce their eyes and ears and all evidence.  
In this fifth Chapter, he argues out of the Liberties of the Britannic Churches. But first I would know what this belongs to us, unless it be proved that their practics were an obliging precedent to us; have we any Title from the Britannic Churches, otherwise than by the Saxon Christians, who only were our Ancestors, and by whose conquests and laws all that is in the Britannic World belongs to us, and is derived to us; Yet is this also false▪ For nothing in History is more evident, than that the British Churches admitted appellations to Rome at the Council of Sardica: And, as much as we have Records in our Histories of the Pope Eleutherius, so much appears the Pope's Authority in that time. And out of St. Prosper contra Collatorem, & in Chron. We have that the Pope Celestinus, by his care, and sending St. German, Vice sua, in his own stead, freed the Britan's from Pelagianism, and converted the Scots by Palladius, though Venerable Bede, as far as I remember, does not touch that circumstance.  
But that which is mainly to the purpose, is, that since the Privilege we pretend was one that descends upon the Pope▪ in quality of Successor to St. Peter, how far it was executed, may be unknown, but that it was due, none can be ignorant. And here our late Bishop begins to shuffle from the privilege of St. Peter, to the Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Pope, which is another, an historical, a mutable power, and so concerns not our present debate.  
Two objections he makes seem to deserve an answer; First, That the Welsh, or Britan's, sided with the Eastern Churches against the Roman in the observation of Easter. To which I answer, 'tis true, they observed not Easter right, yet never so much as cited the Eastern Churches, in abetment of their practice, but only the custom of their own Ancestors: Neither was there any cause of siding, we not hearing it was ever pressed by the Church of Rome, after Victor's time, to any height. The Council of Nice, and the Emperor Constantine exhorted the Christian World to it, but without any coercitive force: And if the Britan's resisted, or rather neglected them, I think we ought not to say they sided against them, but only did not execute their desires.  
St. Iren●us was of the French Church, yet testifies this question was no matter of division; so that it cannot be guessed by this what influence the Roman Church had or had not upon the British. It seems certain also, that St. Lupus and Germanus neglected this Point, that is, thought it not necessary to be corrected; however St. Austin seemed more rigorous. And though Palladius, sent from Celestinus, converted the Scots, yet we find some of them in the same practice.  
The second Objection is out of a piece of a worn Welsh Manuscript, hoped by the Protestants to be a Copy of some ancienter Original, which, though it has already been proved a manifest forgery, counterfeited by all likelihood in Q. Elizabeth's time, when the English Protestants sought to corrupt the Welsh, by Catechisms and other Writings, printed and not printed; Yet if their great Antiquaries can show, that in St. Gregory's time, this name Papa, or Pope, taken by itself, without other addition, as Papa Urbis Romae, etc. was put (as in later ages) for the Bishop of Rome, I shall confess myself much surprised▪ If they cannot, these very words sufficiently convince the Manuscript to be a mere Imposture.  
Another suspicion against the legitimatnes of this paper naturally arises from this, that Sr. Henry Spelman, one so diligent in wi●ing off the dust from old writings, found no other Antiquity in it worth▪ the mention; which shrewdly implies the Book was made for this alone. And so this demonstrative proof of the Bishop, is a conviction of the forgery of some counterfeit Knave, and the easiness of assent in Mr. Mosten, and the Knight.  
In his 6th Chapter he pretends three things; 1. That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdraw their obedience from Rome. 2ly, That they had sufficient grounds for it; and 3ly, That they did it with due moderation. I doubt not but the intelligent Reader understands by the first point, that the Bishop means to shuffle away the true difficulty; and, whereas the Question is of the Privilege given by Christ to Saint Peter, and from him descended to the Popes, his Successors, spend his time about a Patriarchal Authority, which we also acknowledge to be of humane institution; And here I must confess, that generally when no body opposes him, his Lordship carries it clearly and gives his empty Reader full satisfaction.  
He tells you out of Catholic Authors, that Princes may resist the oppressions of ecclesiastics, and themselves have privilege to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: That Popes have been convented and deposed: That Emperors have changed Patriarches, and that the Kings of England have as much power as Emperors. And all this to handle the Question, which is not in hand, since our dispute is not what can be done in respect of the Pope's Patriarchal Authority, which the good Bishop himself professes the Pope has renounced these 600. years.  
No doubt but th'other two points will follow the former in missing the Question. For, admitting the Pope's Authority to be derived from Christ, what grounds can there be for renouncing it, or what moderation is the rejjecting it capable of? Nay even, if it were of humane institution, many things there are which cannot be rejected, unless it appear the abuses are not otherwise remediable.  
Suppose then the Christian World had chosen themselves one Head for the preservation o●●o precious a Jewel, as Unity in Religion, how great absurdities must that Head commit, what wrong● must it do, to cause itself to be justly deposed, and not only the Person deposed, but the very Government abolished.  
Suppose again, that this alteration should ●ee made by some one party of the Christian Commonwealth, which must separate itself from the assistance and communication of the ●●st of Christianity; ought not far weightier causes be expected, or greater abuses committed?  
Suppose thirdly, that by setting aside this Supreme Head, eternal dissensions will inevibly follow in the whole Church of Christ, to the utter ruin of faith and good life, which our Saviour thought worth the coming down from Heaven to plant among us; and then tell me, whether the refusal to comply with the humours of a lustful Prince, be ground enough ●o renounce so necessary an Authority. Let the Bishop be now asked, whether Kings deserve to be deposed, and Monarchy itself rejected for such abuses as he gathers against the Pope? or whether there may not easily be made a collection of as many an I great misgovernments against the Court of England, or any other Country? Let him remember whether like abuses were not alleged against his own Parliamentary-Prelacy, when it was put down. Will he justify, that if the misdemeanours pretended against them had been true, the extirpation of Prelacy had been lawful? Surely he would find out many remedies which he would think necessary to be first tried; and S●●ggin should as soon have chosen a tree to be hanged on, as ●hee have ended the number of expedients to be ●●yed, before he would give his assent to the extirpation of Episcopacy.  
It is then of little concern to examine whether his complaints be true or false, since he does not show there was no other remedy but division: and much more, since it is known, if the authority be of Christ's institution, no just cause can possibly be given for its abolishment: but most, because all other Catholic Countries might have made the same exception which England pretends, yet they remain still in communion with the Church of Rome, whose Authority you cry out against as intolerable; nay, the former Ages of our Country, which yourself cite, had the same cause to cast the Pope's supremacy out of the land, yet rather preferred to continue in the peace of the Church, then attempt so destructive an innovation as Schism draws after it. Neither n●w after we have broke the ice, do our neighbour Nations think it reasonable to follow our example, and drown their unity in the waters of Contradiction.  
Lastly, the pretences on which the English Schism was originally made, were far different from those you now take up to defend it; there was then no talk of imposing new Creeds as the conditions of Communion; no mention of the abominations of Idolatry and Superstition, which now fill your Pulpits, nor indeed any other original quarrel, but the Pope's proceeding according to the known Laws of the Church, which unfortunately happened to be contrary to the tyrannical humour of the King.  
The other point of due moderation, is a very pleasant Topick, had I a mind to answer at large his Book; The first part of moderation, is the separating themselves from their Errors, not their Churches; this signifies to declare them Idolaters, superstitious, wicked, and nevertheless communicate with them; reconciling thus light to darkness, and making Christ and Antichrist to be of the same society. I confess this a very good moderation for him that has no Religion in his heart, or acknowledges his own the worst, there being no danger for him to fear seducing by communication with others. But whoever is confident of his own, by this very fact implicitly disapproves others. I cannot say mine is true, but I must say the opposite is false: mine is good, but the opposite, I must say, is naught: mine necessary, but I must judge▪ that which is inconsistent carries to damnation, though I am bound both to pity and love the person that descents. Therefore, who does not censure▪ a contrary Religion, holds not his own certain, that is, hath none.  
The second part of moderation he places in their inward charity, which, if he had manifested by their external works, we might have had occasion to believe him: Our Saviour telling us the tree is known by the fruit it bears.  
The third part therefore, he is pleased to think may be found, in that they only take away Points of Religion, and add none. Wherein is a double Error. For first, to take away goodness, is the greatest evil that can be done. What more mischievous than to abrogate good laws, good practices. Let them look on the Scotch Reformation, who have taken the memory of Christ from our eyes, by pulling down Pictures and Crosses; the memory of His principal actions, by abolishing Holidays; the esteem of virtue, by vilifying his Saints, and left him only in the mouths of babbling Preachers, that disfigure him to the people, as themselves please. What if they took away the New Testament too, and even solemn Preaching, and left all to the will of a frantic Teacher, were not this a great moderation, because they added nothing?  
The second abuse is, that he who positively denies, ever adds the contrary to what he takes away. He that makes it an Article, there is no Purgatory, no Mass, no prayer to Saints, has as many Articles, as he who holds the contrary. Therefore this kind of moderano is a purefolly.  
The last Point he deems to be a preparation of mind to believe and practise whatever the Universal Church believes and practices ● and this is the greatest mock-fool Proposition of all the rest. First they will say, there is no Universal Church, or if any, indeterminate, that is, no man knows which it is; and then, with a false and hypocritical heart, profess a great readiness to believe and obey it. Poor Protestants, who are led by the nose after such silly Teachers and Doctrines: who, following the steps of our old mother Eve, are flattered with the promses of knowledge, like the knowledge of God, but paid only with the pure experience of evil.  
In his seventh Chapter, he professes, that all Princes and Republics of the Roman Communion, do in effect the same things which the Protestants do, when they have occasion, or at least plead for it What non sense will not an ill cause bring a desperate man to? All this while he would persuade the World that Papists are most injurious to Princes, prejudicing their Crowns, and subjecting their Dominions to the will of the Pope. He has scarce done saying so, but with a contrary blast drives as far back again, confessing all he said▪ to be false; and that the same Papists hold the very doctrine of the Protestants in effect, and the difference is only in words: So that this Chapter seems expressly made to justify the Papists, and to show, that, though the Popes sometimes personally exceed, yet when their passion is over, or the present interest ceases, than they acknowledge for Catholics and Orthodox, those who before opposed them, as also that the Catholic Divines, who teach the doctrine of resisting the Pope in such occasions, are not, for that, cast out of Communion; which is as much as to say, it is not our Religion, or any public Tenet in our Church, that binds any to those rigorous assertions, which the Protestants condemn.  
If this be so, what can justify your bloody Laws, and bloodier Execution, for the fourscore years you were in power? Why were the poor Priests, who had offended no farther than to receive from a Bishop's hands the power of consecrating the body of Christ, condemned to die a Traitor's death? Why the Layman, that harboured any such person, made liable to the same forseiture of estate and life? Why were Baptisms, Church, Burials, Marriages, all punished? Why were men forced to go to your Synagogues under great penalties? Seldom any lawful conviction exacted, but proceeding upon mere surmises. A Priest, arrested upon the least suspicion, and hurried before the Magistrate, was not permitted to refer his cause to witnesses, but compelled to be his own Accuser; and, without any shadow of proof so much as enquired after, if he denied not himself, immediately sent to prison as a Traitor. A Priest, coming to his Trial before the Judges, was never permitted to require proof of his being a Priest; It sufficed, that, having said Mass, or heard a Confession, he could not prove himself a knave.  
What shall I say of the setting up of Pursuivants to hare poor Catholics in all places and times; I have seen, when generally they kept their houses close-shut, and, if any knocked, there was a sudden pang and solicitude, before they durst open their doors. They could neither eat nor sleep in any other security, than that which a good Conscience gave them.  
But the cruelest part of all, was to defame us of Treason. First you make a Law, that, to acknowledge the Successor of S. Peter had a common superintendency over the Church, was Treason; and then brand us for Traitors. Should a Presbyterian or Independent Power make it Treason to acknowledge Prelacy, would you think it reasonable presently to conclude all the older-fashioned Protestants Traitors?  
Nor can I persuade myself I offer any violence to Charity, if I plainly and roundly charge you, that in all this you proceeded flatly against your Consciences, it being impossible you should really judge the bare receiving Orders beyond Sea to be Treason, which is abundantly convinced by your very offer of pardon, nay sometimes preferment, if he, whom you made the people believe was a dangerous and bloody Traitor, would but go to Church with you; For what Priest died for being a Priest, but he might have rescued himself at the last hour by such submission? What Priest was so bad, whom you were not ready to entertain with honour, if he would take party with you?  
So unlucky is his Lordship in this Chapter, that, whatever his intention is, he absolves us, or at least condemns himself, if he would be understood as the Letter of his Exceptions sounds, he absolutely clears our Religion of a calumny, which the Protestants most injuriously charge upon us, that our vassalage to the Pope destroys our subjection to our Prince; citing so many instances, where Catholics, remaining such, have disobeyed the Pope. If he on purpose lays his sense to be ambiguous, of which I have some jealousy, because he uses that juggling phrase in effect, than he absolutely proves himself a Deceiver. In short, if he mean honestly, he justifies us; if otherwise, every honest man will condemn him; But whatever his inward meaning is, the Case opened will declare itself.  
Christ, being to build his spiritual Kingdom upon the Basis, not only of the Roman Monarchy, then flourishing, but of a multitude of Kingdoms, either bred out of the destruction of that, or originally independent and distinct from it, which, in process of time, should embrace his Faith, saw it necessary to make such a▪ band of Unity betwixt the Churches, of which his spiritual Empire was to be integrated, that it neither should be offensive to temporal Princes, nor yet unprovided of means to keep the Church in such amity as to be able to work like the Congregation of Jerusalem, which had Cor unum & animam unam. For this reason he gave the principality among his Apostles to S. Peter, and consequently to his Successors among theirs. The effect of this Principality was, that when public meetings of Bishops were necessary, all emulation, who should have recourse to the other, was taken away, since it was known all were to defer to him, meet as and where, was most fitting for him.  
Again, if any inconvenience fell among Christians, there wanted not one who was by office to look to it, though in the place where it fell out, there were no superior Authority to curb the offenders. This one Seat might, by the ordinary providence of Almighty God, keep a continuance of Succession from S. Peter to the end of the World, whereas the vicissitude of humane nature permitted not the like to be done to all the Sees where all the rest of the Apostles had signed their Faith by their precious death. Hence 'tis the See of Rome is invested with the special privilege of Mother and Mistress of the Church. But, not to dive into all, or the questionable consequences of this Primacy, this only I intent to insist upon; that it is the hinge upon which all the common government and unity in Faith, Sacraments, Ceremonies, and communication of spiritual Fraternity depends, which being removed, the Church vanishes into a pure Anarchy, no one Province or Country having the least obligation to any other, to repair to it, to obey it, to make Meetings and common Ordinances with it. So that the whole frame of the Church will be utterly dissolved, ceasing to be a Church, and becoming a ruinous heap of stones, precious indeed in themselves, but without order, shape, or connexion.  
By this it clearly follows, whatever is the truth of those Questions which our Bishop reckons up to have been disputed between other Christian Countries and the Papacy, that as long as this Principality we speak of, is acknowledged, so long there is an Unity in the Christian Church, all particular Churches being by this subordination perfectly one, both with their Head, and among themselves. This is the bridle our Saviour put in the mouth of his Church, to wield it sweetly which way he pleased. No dissension in Faith or Discipline, nay not any war among Christian Princes could annoy the World, if this Authority were duly preserved and governed; Many excellent effects we have seen of it, and more the world is likely to enjoy, when the admirable conveniences of it shall be unpassionately understood.  
What Christian Prince can choose but be glad to have an Arbitrator, so prudent, so pious, so disinteressed, as a good Pope should be, to reconcile differences, and to hinder bloodshed, either in his own people, or between his neighbours; And, who sees not, that the Pope's office and condition, among those who reverence him, is perfectly proper for such an effect beyond the hopes of wisdom that had not known th'experience of it. What a desperate attempt than is it to bite at this bridle, and strive to put the whole Christian World in confusion? This is your crime, in this consists your Schism, in this your impiety and wickedness.  
Agreeing then, that this is the substance of the Papacy, temporal preeminences and wealth being but accidental to it, we shall presently see all those arrows which the Bishop shoots against us, fall directly on his own head; For if the Papacy stand firm and strong in all those Countries that have resisted the Pope when they conceived he encroached on their ' liberties, it is evident, notwithstanding all such disputes, the Being and Nature of one Church is entirely conserved, they all governing themselves in an Unity of Faith and Sacraments and Correspondence like one Body, as is visible to any that will but open his eyes, and so are Members of one Christian Community. Whereas the Reform (as they call it) has cut off England from all this communication and correspondence, and made it no part of any Church, greater than itself; and by consequence, that can pretend to Universality and Catholicism, but a headless Synagogue, without Brotherhood or Order; if joined with any other, it is not in a common head, but with the tails of opposition to the Roman Catholic.  
No more can the several Protestant Churches be allowed to compose one Body, than all the ancient Heretics did, nay than Turks and jews and Christians may be now said to do; since the sole root of unity Protestants can pretend, is only their agreement in certain general Points, which most of the old Heretics professed; and even Turks, and jews believe some part of the Christian Faith: As for the Protestant distinction, that all are of one Communion, who agree in fundamentals, 'tis no better than a mere shift, till they exhibit a list of such Points, and prove them obligingly and satisfactorily to all the rational people of the World, that they, and they only, are essential to Christian Communion.  
His eighth Chapter would fain be thought to prove the Pope and Court of Rome guilty of Schism. First, because she takes upon her to be Mistress▪, where she is but Sister to other Churches. It is their saying, and our denying it, till they have proved what they affirm. The second Argument is a mee● calumny, that she obtrudes new Creeds, and unjustly excommuicates those who will not receive them.  
At the third blow he lays the Axe (as he says) to the root of Schism; but, if I understand his words, it is to his own legs. The Papacy (says ●ee) qua talis, which he interprets, as it is maintained by many. Goodnight my Lord of London-Derry, for certainly your wits are in the dark. If you once begin to say, as it is maintained by many, you imply, it is not maintained by all, and therefore not the Papacy qua talis, for so Catholics have not the least difference amongst them. If you will dispute against private Opinions, cite your Authors, and argue against them, not the Church, whose belief is contained in the Decrees of Councils, and universal consent of Fathers and Doctors.  
His fourth Charge is, that the Popes hold themselves to be Bishops of every particular See; which is a more gross and false imputation than any of the rest. Other two branches he offers at, but confesses them not to be decided in our Church, and therefore can make nothing for him.  
His ninth Chapter pretends to solve the Romanists Arguments; and first that grand one of Schism; which he maintains to be so clearly unimputable to Protestants, that he says they hold Communion with thrice as many Christians as we do. And truly, if by Christians, he means those who lay claim to the name of Christ, I neither deny his answer, nor envy him his multitude; For Manichees, Gnostics, Carpocratians, Arians, Nestorians, Eu●y●hians, etc. without number, all ●surp to themselves the honour of this Title; and I most faithfully protest, I do not think his Lordship has any solid reason to refuse Communion to the worst of them. But if he means by Christians, those, who never changed the doctrine which their Fathers taught them, as received from the Apostles, so let him show me one, who is not in communion with the Roman Church, and I also shall be of that one's Communion.  
The second Argument he undertakes, is, That Protestants admit not the Council of Trent. To which he replies, it was not General, because the Heretical Patriarches were not called; many Bishops were absent; too many Italians there; fewer Bishop's present at the determination of weightiest Points, than the King of England could assemble in a month. What trivial stuff is this? Is not a Parliament the General Representative of the Nation, unless every Lord, though a known and condemned Rebel, be summoned? or unless every Member, that has a right to sit there, be present? Who is so impertinent, as to quarrel at the generalness of a Parliament, if some Court▪ Lords be admitted to their Voices? or if the number of Voters in some Parliaments be fewer than in others? What's this to the purpose, if none that have a true right, be excluded? Yet these are the grand Exceptions; only in some words, wherein he expresses his anger, Passion made him quite forget they might possibly be retorted upon his own condition; else what a blindness is it to call the Bishops of Italy, hungry parasitical Pensioners? It seems, my Lord, you keep a good Table, speak the truth boldly, and have great Revenues, independent of any.  
As for the instance of the French Churches non-admittance of the Council of Trent, yourself confesses it is there received for matters of doctrine; and I confess, that for other Canons, the execution of them may be omitted, unless the true Superiors press their observance.  
Secondly, he says it was not free; A false and injurious calumny, taken out of Sleidan, accounted by our part a frank liar and forger.  
Thirdly, he seigns an Objection to himself, their breaking from the Patriarchat, which already we have cleared, is not the question, and himself, though weakly and sillily, endeavours to prove cannot stand with the claim of Papal Authority from Christ. After these, he descends to consider such of our Arguments as he is pleased to think of lesser importance.  
As first, That Protestants have no Clergy; because no Priests: For the notion of a Priest is to be a Sacrificer, and their Reform renounces all truly called Sacrifice. This he hides in obscure and common terms of matter and form, and shuffles likewise certain common words in Answer.  
Secondly, because their Ministers, whom they term Priests, were made by no Bishops. The Controversy is largely treated by Doctor Champney against Mason. He answers it with childish and impudent words. Father Oldcorn, whom he citys, was known to be a weak and timorous man, who might be easily surprised. I could never hear, that any Catholic, esteemed judicious, was ever admitted to a free perusal of their Registers; but know well, that the Contemporaries protested against any lawful Ordination of their first Bishops, and were answered by silence. He says they hold no spiritual Jurisdiction from the Crown; But the Statutes of the Nation, and their own Oaths say the contrary. Let him dispute it with the Lawyers.  
The tenth Chapter contains what he expects to be the result of his Book. He first complains of hard usage, and thinks the very Turk not so cruel as those who now persecute Protestants in England. Truly no good man, I believe, wishes his Party harm; But me thinks he might remember, they suffer not so much as themselves have done in their Reign, against those, who, in respect of them, were Aborigines; whose possession was the same that Christian Religion had among us; And would to God, they could, even now be quiet and friendly, when they are in eadem damnatione; Prelacy, as well as Popery, being voted damnable Heresy by the late Parliament,  
'Tis true, their Religion, as considered including Episcopacy, is cast out of the Land; but then how comes Episcopacy to be essential to their Religion? Have not the Bishops always professed themselves of the same Communion with the Huguenots of France, the Zwinglians of Switzerland, etc. who hold Episcopacy abominable? The persons of such Bishops as reside in England, and are accused of nothing but Episcopacy, live free and secure, enjoy their whole Estates, except what belonged to their Dignity, and have no Oaths imposed on their Consciences. Were Catholics permitted this liberty, I am▪ confident you should seldom be troubled with hearing their complaints of Persecution; and yet on all occasions you are still upraiding the liberty given to Papists, which is a mere blindness of malice. Do you not see all the Catholics of England, such as never engaged in the war, are, purely upon the score of Religion, at this day sequestered, and two thirds of their Estates taken from them? Do you not see our Priests, when discovered, proceeded against as Traitors? is it not enough to satisfy your▪ uncharitable eyes, that so many of them have been hanged, drawn and quartered for their Religion▪  
Are these the men that pretend moderation, and all day long cry up brotherly Charity? I will offer ther● this bargain, in the name of all the Catholics of England, who I am persuaded will readily subscribe the Contract. That two indifferent persons read over all the Statutes made since the Reformation, and every where, in stead of Papist, write Protestant, with this mercy too, that the execution shall be now and then interrupted, and a condemned Minister sometimes have reprieve▪ nay, and more than we can obtain of them, they shall enjoy all the privileges of Papists, without the least envy from us. If they refuse this fair offer, let them never hereafter be so impertinent as to repine at our liberty, and with the same breath complain of their own sufferings.  
As to his desirable intention of Unity in the Church; First I could wish they would let real Charity take root in their hearts. Secondly, not think the misdemeanours of some Pope's a sufficient warrant to break the Unity of the Church. Thirdly, to receive the root of Christianity, that is, a practical Infallibility in the Church, the ready and only means to know the truth of Christ's Law; which being denied, there is no Religion left in the World.  
This is that which is chiefly required, without this, how muchsoever we have Christ in our tongues, we are Atheists in our hearts, proud Luciferian Erecters of ourselves above all that's called God, Judgers of Christ and his Law, not obeyers and servants. This is that which only can make a Reconciliation both in Doctrine and Government; and, as long as it is neglected, all we endeavour towards peace, is labour cast away. If truly and cordially he, or any other study means for peace, let them endeavour it so as to leave a Religion and a known Law of Christ, and an open method of coming to it in the World. Otherwise all lovers of Christ and Christianinity can have no share or participation with them.   
FINIS.  

ERRATA.  
PAge 3. Line 1. Parricide. p. 8. l. 9 Nice. p. 18. l. 31. self-acknowledged. p. 33. l. 10. Pope. p. 37. l. 1. Sect. 6. p. 40. l. 8. other Crew. p. 67. l. 34. this. p. 68 l. 3. given by. p. 88 l. 11. Premises. p. 96. l. 9 alleging. p. 101. l. 32. called. p. 105. l. 22. solved. p. 110. l. 21. which can. p. 115. l. 2. quaere the Title in the Table. p. 118. l. 34: shows it. p. 119. l. 4. Patriarches. l. 24. the Novel. p. 123. l. 30. be one man or one horse p. 143. l. 3. did it not. p. 147. l. 5. by some p. 157. l. 29. rake. p. 162. l. 21. Arch-Heretick. p. 163. l. 10. Quid. p. 199. l. 3. their su- p. 210. l. 20. which. p. 217. l. 24. flagrant. p. 223. l. 31. on any. p. 223. l. 13▪ it in. p, 256. l. 1. by your. p. 259. l. 20. as they. p. 280. l. 2. in that. p. 288. l. 20. of your. p. 312. l. 29. in his.