the Universities where there is no disputation but the one affirmes and the other denies and the Defendant holds his Conclusion for true till the Opponent proves the contrary without being judged to incur the fault of begging the question Besides to what dark holes you run for clear proofes we have already shewn and till you can shew us a greater Authority to acquit you than is the Churches Tribunal which condemned you your denying it will but double the fault not clear it especially since the material fact of Schism that is dividing from the persons with whom you formerly communicated cannot bee deny'd however you may pretend the intention or cause of it to be doubtful or obscure Ere I leave this first part of judging otherâ—â— I desire the Reader to fancy in his own minde as perfect a Schismatick as can bee imagin'd and therfore deservedly cast out by the Church which done let him read this Doctors tenth Chapter and hee shall easily perceive that hee has not brought one word for himselfe which the other justly-condemned schismatick may not with as good reason make use of So easily it is discoverable by the manner of weapon the Dr. wears whose side he is on and whose banner he fights under His second charge of Schism against mutual Charity is that we despise and set at nought the Brother Good Brother Doctor tell mee how we despise you We pity you indeed seeing the calamities you are fallen into by your former fault as also to see you persist still obstinately blind in the midst of your punishment But despise you wee doe not Yet you conclude the cause by the effect that is our casting you out of the Church and therefore say the guilt lies on our side EUGE QUANTI EST SAPERE Let us put the demonstration a posteriori in form and you shall see the invincibleness of it They who cast others out of the Church despise them and are guilty of schism against Charity But the Roman Church cast us out of the Church Therefore they despise us and are guilty of schism against Charity By which account no Church can condemn any one of schism but shee must bee a schismatick her selfe whereas wee did not cast them out but upon their avowed contumacy against the orders of our Church which the Doctor himselfe holds as a reason sufficient for the Protestant to excommunicate Catholikes Where you see the first Proposition can onely be sustained by making this shameless assertion good that no man can cast another out of the Church but he must despise him and consequently bee guilty of unchartiableness and schism But the Doctor argues as if a Rebel should confess at large that indeed he rejected the Authority of the Supreme Magistrate and receded from the former Lawes and Customes of the Common-wealth yet notwithstanding they must not punish him and his company or if they doe they are guilty of faction sedition dissention and despising their fellowes What King now could bee so hard-hearted as to punish a Rebel defending himself with such a wise solid and rational plea The Doctor confess'd that they rejected the Authority of the Pope formerly acknowledg'd to bee Supreme that they receded from the doctrines and practises of Rome of which Church they were a little before members and subjects and when he has done tells this Church it must not punish them nor excommunicate them or if she doe she is guilty of schism uncharitableness of despising and setting at nought the Brother But pray Mr. Doctor what schism is it after you had run away from the Church ever since King Henry fell in love to tell you in the tenth year of Queen Elixabeth when she saw you would not mend but grew daily worse and worse that she could no longer forbear to punish your pertinacious disobedience After this the Doctor crouds together a great company of advantages of our Religion with which wee pre-possesse our subjects though the Doctor mistakes in some and which hee sayes are so many reasons why they doe not set us at nought and despise us First the advantage of our education True indeed we are taught to obey our Superiors and hear our Pastors Secondly the prescribed credulity to all that the Church shall propose Good Mr. Dr whom should the Faithful beleeve in telling them the sence of Gods word if not the Church such pitiful guessing Southsayers as you Are not our Saviours words Hear the Church and I am with you ever till the end of the world plaine enough and sufficient to secure their credulity to such a Heav'n-assisted-Mistress And indeed how can you think those who cannot employ sufficient time to study out their Faith should be otherwise instructed than by Credulity Look whether your Proselytes doe not rely even upon your private Authority so natural and necessary is it there should bee an Authority to governe weak people Thirdly the doctrine of infallibility That is wee tell them Faith is certain and hath certain grounds a grievous accusation Fourthly the shutting up the Scriptures in an unknown Languge That is taking order that the unlearned nor unstable pervert them not to their own damnation Fifthly the impossibility that the multitude should search or examine Tradition with their own eyes That is the Doctor is utterly ignorant what Tradition is Is it such an impossible matter for the meanest person that hath age enough to know what doctrine was held by Christians ten yeares agoe or for them that liv'd ten yeares agoe to know what was held 20 years since and so forth Especially Faith not being a meer speculation but shewing it selfe in practise which proclames that heavenly law of Grace so openly that all must see it except such as neither have no eyes or wilfully shut them This Sir is the main mystery of Tradition which you imagin'd wee kept reserved like the Ark of the Testament and Mose's Tables from the sight of the people Sixthly The prosperous estate of the Roman Church and the persecutions and calamities of yours I see wee are in some sence beholding to our good fortune or your misfortune for your chariritablenesse But you complain for nothing what persecution suffer you in England in comparison of the Catholikes What Laws make it Treason to become a Protestant as they do to bee reconciled to the Catholike Religion What Oaths are impos'd on Protestants to renounce their Faith under pain of high Treason and forfeiture of their Estates as in those of Supremacy and Abjuration against Catholikes Read over the large Volume of Penal Statutes made in the dayes of your Dominion and you shall find that Catholikes can neither be married nor baptiz'd nor taught at home nor sent abroad nor maintain'd by their parents while they live nor buried when they dye without incurring the danger of a Premunire or some other severe penalty In all these I am confident your kind of Protestancy never endured the least punishment but a light cross is enough
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 vertue of ready and filial obedience of those under authority to their lawfully authorized Superiors mentioned by him and extolled for a vertue of the first magnitude And the indifferent Reader will aâ— once both easily discern hereafter whether the present Catholicks who hear the Church and believe her in her Lawfully authoriz'd Governors or the first Reformers who without any and against all Authority disobeyed and disbelieved her have the better title to that eminent vertue and he will also wonder why the Doctor should face his Book with the Encomiums of that Vertue the bare explication whereof applyed to the carriage of the first Reformers must manifestly condemn them and quite confute and disgrace all Doctor Hammonds laborious endeavours But a pretence to a vertue if confidently carried on seems to the vulgar an argument of a just claim and high commendations of it makes the pretence more credible For who willingly praises but what is either his own or his friends or dispraises but what is his enemies Which makes him in the next three Paragraphs proceed in the same tenor of Rhetorick and from Scriptures and Fathers paint â—ut the horrid vice of Schism in her own ugly shape as that it is carnality self-condemning contrary to charity bereaving one of the benefits of prayers and Sacraments as bad as and the foundation of all heresies that there is scarce any crime the place cited is absolute that there is not any crime though he mince it with scarce so great as Schisme not Sacriledg Idolatry Parracide that it is obnoxious to peculiar marks of Gods indignation Antichristianism worshiping or serving the Devil not expiable by martyrdom it being according to Iraenâ—â—s impossible though the Dr. mitigates the dangerous expression with very hard if not impossible to receive such an injury or provocation from the Governors of the Church as may make a separation excusable And lastly impossible according to St. Austin that there should be any just cause for any to separate from the Catholick Church Instead of which last words the Doctor full of jealousies and fears puts the Church truely Catholick as if there were much danger lest perhaps any should imagin Christs Church of which I conceive St. Austin meant it to be untruly Catholick And now what good honest well-minded Reader not much acquainted with the Doctors manner of Rhetorick would be so unconscionable as to think him guilty of that vice which he so candidly and largely sets forth in its own colours although in those expressions which might too directly prejudice his future work he seems something chary And indeed I wonder for whose sake he hath gathered such a bundle of severe rods out of the sacred Scriptures and the best Fathers to whip Schismaticks Such expressions as I hope will strongly incite the Protestant Reader whom a true care of his eternal good may invite to seek satisfaction in this point seriously to consider that the decision of no one controversie is more nearly concerning his salvation than this as appears by the abominable character of Schisme which the Doctor hath with so much pains deciphered to be an Abridgement of all the most hainons damnable inexcusable unexpiable vices that can be named or imagin'd Of which Augaean stable if Mr. Hammond can purge the Protestant Church he shall ever wear the most deserved title of the Reformers Hercules But I am sorry to foresee that the more he handles his work the more the dirt will remain sticking upon his own fingers He proceeds or rather infers from the former Premises an irrefragable Conclusion as he calâ— it that the examination of the occasion cause or motive of any mans Schism is not worth the producing or heeding in this matter This besides the manifest advantage it gives us of which hereafter is the preâ—tiest fetch to wave the whole question and whatsoever is material in it that I ever met with That you are excommunicated or separated from the Communion of our Church whence as you say the Schisme springs all the world sees and acknowledges What remains then to justifie or condemn you or us but that there was or was not sufficient cause to cast you out and deny you Communion For that our Church had authority to do it if you be found to deserve it being then her subjects or children none doubts If then there were no cause our Church was tyrannical If there were you are truely and properly Schismaticks first in giving just cause of your own ejection next in remaining out of our Church still and not removing those impediments which obstruct your return This is most evidently the very point of the difficulty which being in great haste to shorten your method you would totally decline Make what haste you please so you take the question along with you For assure your self however you would avoid it now you cannot possibly treat it without examining the causes and motives of breaking as de facto you do afterwards Although if you can evidence that there is actually no Schisme made between us then indeed I must confess there can be no need of examining the causes of a thing that is not But it is impossible to make this seem evident without putting out ours your own and the whole worlds eyes But you desire only that the truth of the matter of fact be lookt into whether the charge of Schisme be sufficiently proved c. It is proved Mr. Doctor if you be proved to have so misbehaved your selves within the Church that to conserve he Government inviolate she was forced to 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 untouch'd But on this we shall insist more at large when the very handling the question forces you though unwilling to touch the occasions or causes of Schisme at least such as you thought fit and seem'd most plausibly answerable by the notes you had glean'd up and down to that purpose SECT 2 Concerning his Notion of Schisme and the Excommunication of the Church HIs second Chapter begins with the distinction of Heresie and Schisme concerning which what he hath said is true but yet he hath omitted some part of the truth which was necessary to be told Wherefore let him but take along with him that not only Schisme is a dissenting from Authority and Heresie an introducing a false doctrine into the Church but also that all heresie which it concerns his cause to be willing to pretermit must necessarily include
readest this Answer whether thou be'st Catholick Protestant Puritan nay even the Doctor himself it is impossible but thou shouldst manifestly see that the Doctor hath not said one syllable to the purpose there being neither in any of the former nor following Testimonies either out of Scriptures Fathers or Histories any the least restrictive or exclusive sentence particle or syllable for him To say nothing that all both Scriptures Fathers and ancient Histories are most expresly against him What a most unfortunate man is this Doctor to vent these for EVIDENCES and how unfortunate they who hazard the eternal loss of their Souls upon such mens writings But to return to our six Testimonies By what means think you does he make them speak to his purpose Not by torturing and screwing the words to confess what they never intended that were impossible in such stubborn allegations and perfectly-silent in what concerns him Nor by intermingling words of his own to prompt them and make them speak out which is the old and often-discover'd trick of his fellows nor by criticizing his former unsuccessful art but by pinning a Paper of his own forging to the Testimony alleaged and gulling the Reader to his face that the Author sayes it So as the device is the same onely the method altered for the said necessary Paper-which he used to pin behinde the Testimony now he pastes before it beginning the ninth Paragraph which introduces the formerly-recited Testimonies thus The same is as EVIDENT at Rome where these two great Apostles met again and each of them erected and managed a Church St. Peter of Iews and St. Paul of Gentiles Hold Doctor the Testimonies should have told us that why do you forestal them And then as in the eight Section after his own bare WE KNOW he used the transition of ACCORDINGLY to bring in his Authors So now after he had straw'd the way with his own evident as he pleased himself he ushers in the modest Testimonies with so many Soe 's So Irenaeus so Epiphanius so the Inscription so Gaius whereas indeed the following Testimonies are no more So or like his Preface to them and to the question they are produced for then as the Proverb says the running of the Wheel-barrow is to the owing of six pence The Doctor shall put the Similitude in form and the Reader shall judge Just as I say saith the Doctor That St. Peter and St. Paul each of them erected and managed a Church one of Iews the other of Gentiles with exclusion of St. Pauls authority over St. Peters and St. Peters over St. Pauls Congregation Even SO St. Irenaeus says That they built the Church there St. Epiphanius That they were Apostles and Bishops there c. The Reader may perceive the fitness of the rest by applying them at his leasure Onely ere I take my leave of these Testimonies I would gladly learn of the Doctor why in his preamble to them he maintains a distinction of Churches belonging to St. Peter and St. Paul and then brings in St. Prosper with a So to witness it whereas himself in the nineteenth Section of this very Chapter makes the same St. Prosper testifie the quite contrary and a promiscuous Jurisdiction over the Gentiles saying expresly That Peter and Paul at Rome Gentium Ecclesiam Sacrârunt consecrated the Church of the Gentiles Were ever such mistakes incident to any other man as are natural to this Doctor But it seems he wants a good memory a necessary qualification for him that says any thing at random without ground authority or reason to maintain a false cause or rather indeed foreseeing the danger he made the Testimony whisper softly in English lest it might be taken notice of translating Ecclesia Gentium The Church of the Nations because the word Gentiles would be too much reflected on being that which throughout this whole Chapter he hath absolutely interdicted St. Peter to have any thing to do with Alas poor man SECT 11 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 which the Doctor here calls an IRREFRAGABLE EVIDENCE I know the Reader will expect some most express and unavoidable Testimony out of some ancient Writer beyond all exception and of the first Class witnessing as the Faith of that Age the contradistinction and contralimitation of St. Peter and St. Pauls Jurisdiction The Testimony is out of Matthew Paris which I will transcribe word by word together with the Doctors Comment upon it In the Bull of the Pope stands the Image of St. Paul on the right hand of the Cross which is graven in the midst of the Seal and the Image of St. Peter on the left And this onely account saith the Doctor given for St. Pauls having the nobler place Quia c. because he believed in Christ without seeing him Here on Earth addes the Doctor in a Parenthesis Here is all that belongs to this Testimony transcribed to a word without any more either Explication or Application to the matter before or after than is here put down And now for Gods sake Reader tell me what canst thou discern here of St. Peters being Apostle of the Iews onely and exclusively to the Gentiles which may deserve it should be called an IRREFRAGABLE EVIDENCE My eyes are dazel'd it seems with striving to see a thing at such an unproportionable distance for I can espie nothing at all in it Had the Question between us been Whether St. Paul believed on Christ without seeing him or no it might have served to some purpose but to our case it hath no imaginable relation Yet this Eagle-ey'd Doctor in the bare pictures of St. Peter and St. Paul on a Seal can discern clearly an IRREFRAGABLE EVIDENCE that their Authorities are exclusively-limited St. Peters to the Iews St. Pauls to the Gentiles which none living could see without his colour'd and insincere spectacles to wit blackest hatred and rancor against the Pope While he looks through these any thing appears an IRREFRAGABLE EVIDENCE which may seem possible in his perverse imagination to be detorted to the Popes prejudice and to wound him though through the sides of St. Peter After this Testimony or IRREFRAGABLE EVIDENCE follows immediately in the Doctor And all this very agreeable to Scripture which onely sets down St. Peter to be the Apostle of Circumcision and of his being so at Rome saith he we make no question What means his All this For neither in any Testimony nor yet in the Popes Seal is there any the least expression of St. Peters being onely the Apostle of the Circumcision save in his own words onely yet he says that all this is in that point agreeable to Scripture it is then of his own words he means which how disconformable and totally repugnant they are to Scripture hath already been shewn Nor are they less dissonant in this
Communication with any Church either true or even fals For first at your dawning or rather twilight in King Henry's dayes for your progress hath not been to noon-day-light but to midnight you had nothing at all to doe with any other Church in Christendom Since that time though you have indeed a kinde of Communication with some few of your fellow Schismaticks yet if well examin'd it is negative onely Faction against Rome initiates you into so much friendship as to converse with the Calvinists sometimes to call them Brethren somtimes to be merry with your doublejug Companions in the Synod of Dort of whose drunken and beastly behaviour wallowing worse then swine in their own vomits I have heard a Pillar of your own Church scandalously complain having too much spirit of draff forced by them into his queaâ—ier stomach Though I say you may thus communicate with them in eating and drinking in which acts * before you made All Communion consist yet any other positive tie and obligation either with them or any others to conserve you in Communion so as you may be said to make up one Ecclesiastically-politick Body united by some inviolable Order such an obligation I say could never be discover'd between you and any other Church good or bad true or fals The Greek Church holding almost all that we doe and scarce two points with you which are against us as your friend Alexander Rosse hath particularly told you The Lutherans hold much more with us in opposition to you than with you in opposition to us The Calâ—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 The Bottome of the Foundation of the Reformation to wit that the King is Head of the Church The 39. Articles which as the Kings Supremacy is the Imprimis so these are all the Items of the Protestants Faith obtain not a total admission from any Church but themselves nor amongst themselves neither their great Champion Mr. Chillingworth rejecting them at his pleasure Nor is there any visible form of Government uniting them all together but they are forced to fly sencelesly to an invisible one either of onely Christ in Heaven or onely Charity pretences to gull the easie vulgar not to satisfie prudent men who know that the Church though it be a spiritual Common-wealth breeding up Soules to a state of a future Eternity yet while it is here on earth it is a Common-wealth of Christians visibly comporting or discomporting themselves in order to Christs laws of which the Church is the Keeper and Conserver and therefore it must have visible Governours without expecting a miraculous recourse to Christ in Heaven to resolve emergent difficulties or to cherish and punish her weldemeaned or misdemeaned subjects But for a more full demonstration that the Church of England has no perfect Communion with the Greek Lutheran Calvinist or any other Church I refer the Reader to the learned Exomologâ—sis or Motives c. of Mr. Cressy a late Protestant Dean but now Religious of the ancient and holy Order of St. Benet where the Doctor may also read among other controversies excellently treated the charge of Schism sufficiently prov'd against his Church Perhaps the Doctor will alledge that their positive Communion with other reformed Churches consists in the acknowledgment of Gods Word and the holding to it But I would ask him whether he means they agree in the Name of Gods Word or in the Thing or Sence of it If in the Name onely then all that have the title of Christians that is all Hereticks and Schismaticks in the World are of one Communion nothing being more rife in their mouths and pens than wrong alledged testimonies out of the Bible the bare name then is not sufficient it must be the Thing that is the sence and meaning of Gods Word in which he must make their positive Communion consist but since they have no one certain known and commonly acknowledged Rule by which to interpret Gods word and fetch out the true inward sence lurking in the imperspicuous bark of the letter it followes they have no positive way or meanes to communicate in the same sence and therefore no positive unity can be grounded on that pretence And it would be as sencelesse to object that they communicate at least in fundamentals found in Gods word since the Scripture not telling them they cannot tell certainly themselves which points are fundamentals which not all being there with equal authority and like tenour delivered and proposed to them And if we should goe to reason to know what are fundamentals surely reason would give it that the rules of Faith and Government are more fundamental than all the rest No positive communion therefore have they with our Church as little with their fellow schismaticks it being the nature of boughs separated not to grow together into one tree after they have once lost connection with the root Where they are cut off there they lie and though for a short time they retain some verdure and some little moystning sap counterfeiting life that is as much Religion as serves them to talk of God and Christ yet after a while they wither roâ— and molder away into an hundred atomes of dust or else if they chance to be gathered up or taken away sooner they serve for nothing but to be thrown into the fire SECT 10. That 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 unlesse you can shew you must unavoidably be concluded formal schismaticks And though the testimonies of the Fathers which you formerly produced affirming that there can be no just cause given of schism render all further proof unnecessary yet to make this matter stil more manifest I desire Mr. Hammond in the Churches behalfe that he would give me leave to summon him to the Bar of Reason that we may see what he can answer for himselfe and his friends whose defence here he undertakes Cath. Do not you know that the Church in whose bowels your ancestors til K. Henry began the breach were bred had no other form of Government then that which now is of the Bishop of Rome held chiefe Pastour of the universal Church and supreme in Ecclesiastical matters and that til the breach was made you held as sacred and were under that government 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
examine whether his complaints bee true or false since he does not shew there was no other remedy but division and much more since it is known if the authority be of Christs institution no just cause can possibly be given for its abolishment but most because all other Catholick 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 Countrey which your selfe cite had the same cause to cast the Popes 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 nâ—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 Popes proceeding according to the known Lawes of the Church which unfortunately happen'd to bee 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 Errours not their Churches this signifies to declare them Idolaters superstitious wicked and neverthelesse communicate with them reconciling thus light to darkness and making Christ and Antichrist to be of the same society I confesse 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 implicitely 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 disâ—ents Therefore who does not censure a contrary Religion holds not his own certain that is hath none The second part of moderation hee places in their inward charity which if hee had manifested by their external works we might have had occasion to beleeve him Our Saviour telling us the tree is known by the fruit it bears The third part therefore hee is pleased to think may bee found in that they onely take away Points of Religion and adde none Wherein is a double Errour For first to take away goodnesse is the greatest evil that can be done What more mischievous than to abrogate good lawes good practises 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 Holydayes the esteem of vertue by vilifying his Saints and left him onely in the mouths of babling 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 frantick 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 hee takes away Hee 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 hee deems to be a preparation of mind to beleeve and practise whatever the Universal Church beleeves and practises â— 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 knowes which it is and then with a false and hypocritical heart professe a great readiness to beleeve 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 flatter'd with the promses of knowledge like the knowledge of God but paid onely with the pure experience of evil In his seventh Chapter hee professes that all Princes and Republicks of the Roman Communion doe in effect the same things which the Protestants doe 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 hee would perswade the World that Papists are most injurious to Princes prejudicing their Crowns and subjecting their Dominions to the will of the Pope Hee has scarce done saying so but with a contrary blast drives as far back again confessing all hee said to be false and that the same Papists hold the very doctrine of the Protestants in effect and the difference is onely in words So that this Chapter seems expresly made to justifie the Papists and to shew that though the Popes sometimes personally exceed yet when their passion is over or the present interest ceases then they acknowledge for Catholikes and Orthodox those who before oppos'd them as also that the Catholike 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 publick Tenet in our Church that binds any to those rigorous assertions which the Protestants condemn If this be so what can justifie your bloody Lawes 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 Bishops hands the power of consecrating the body of Christ condemned to die a Traitors death Why the Lay-man that harboured any such person made liable to the same forseiture of estate and life Why were Baptisms Churchings Burials Marriages all punished Why were men forced to goe to your Synagogues under great penalties Seldom any lawful conviction exacted but proceeding upon meer surmises A Priest arrested upon the least suspition 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 enquir'd after if he deny'd not himselfe immediatly sent to prison as a Traitor A Priest comming 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 himselfe a knave What shall I say of the setting up of Pursuivants to hare poor Catholikes in all places and times I have seen when generally they kept their houses close-shut and if any knock't there was a sudden
Schisme and we shall not fall out about this point For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying electio that is a chusing to onesself some private opinion contrary to the commonly received Doctrine of the Church it follows that by every Heresie the Church is truely wounded and rent asunder the proper effect of Schisme So that to conserve her self in her primogenial integrity when shee sees that pertinacity hath throughly and irrecoverably corrupted such a member she is obliged even in charity as well as justice to cut it off ne pars sincer a trahatur His next Observation is an Eagle ey'd Criticisme about the passive vetb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he will have to signifie reciprocal action and passion from and upon himself and to answer to the Hebrew Hithpael which he tels you he could largely exemplifie in the use of other words But first if we may have leave to criticize upon so acute a Critick since it is only for want of conjugations as he saies designed to supply the place of the Hebrew Hithpael how knows he it must necessarily supply that place here since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and its fellows coming from perfect actives must in the first place have a signification perfectly passive and so only for want of Conjugations be translated upon occasion to signifie the neutropassive So that all the Doctors Criticisme at the best is come to this that the Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be capable of such a signification in which though the word did not force it he was pleased without any end or necessity but only to shew his art to take it at this time Secondly though in the Hebrew Language the Voyces and Conjugations be jumbled and therefore the Grammarians admit there eight Conjugations whereas in reality there is but one and rather eight Votes as the said Grammarians affirm yet it is certain and evident to every School-boy that in the Latine and Greek Tongues Voyces and Conjugations are things distinct and of a farr different nature The former alluding chiefly to the sence and signification of the word as appears in our active passive c. the latter being taken from some diversitie in the letters of the word which in the Greek is the characteristical letter in the Latine some long or short letter or syllable correspondent and fit to cause by a constantly-divers manner of varying a distinction in the Conjugation Now comes this Doctor of new Grammar who hath quite forgot his accidence and tels us a passive verbe must have a neuter signification for want of Conjugations as if vapulo and amo could not be of the same conjugation and yet have a different sence the one signifying actively the other neutrally Thirdly if Conjugations will do the deed that is make the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie neutrally I see no reason why the Dr. should complain for want of Conjugations in the Greek Language there being more there than in Hebrew Fourthly whereas he saith this nice kind of signification is fully exprest by the Latine neutrals which partake both of active and passive but are strictly neither I conceive the instances of such verbs as sto and ardeo will best fit his purpose the former signifying either I stand or I am standing the latter I burn or I am burning and then he need not have run so farre as Hithpael since the first Conjugation Kal more properly challenges such kind of absolute or intransitive verbs as appears by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stetit which is of that Conjugation Fifthly our Latine neutrals as such do not signify reciprocal action or passion frâ—om and on himself though the Dr. saies they fully expresse it for we say Roma ardet and yet affirm also that the action of that burning came from Nero and use not to blame Rome that it burnt it self Sixthly the Hebrew Hithpael when it is not coincident with Kal or Niphal as sometimes it is signifies an express action upon it self as fully as two words in Latine or Greek can render it insomuch as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresse as perfectly he delivered over himself as in Greek is denoted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in Latine by tradidit seipsum and then I would know where the Doctor among all his critical observations can shew me one Verb in all the Latine or Greek Language to parallel it or as the Doctor expresses it that is of the nature of Hithpael Seventhly either he meant his Criticisme of the verbal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seems more likely it being the word in question or of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if of the former it is most evident to any man that ever saluted Greek à limine that those verbals signifie a thing done in a sence as perfectly passive as can be imagined without relating at all to the person or any the least intimation whether the action which inferr'd that passion were performed by himself or some others as appears by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which denote a work done an Ordinance constituted without reference to the person that wrought or ordained it The self-same is visible in our present verbal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a rupture made for which reason St. Pauls words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are rendred in the Latin translation Audio scissuras in vobis esse which scissure or rupture signifies most perfectly a division made passively not as the Doctor would have it a reciprocal action or passion from and on himself since a rupture is equally called a rupture whoever it be that makes it But if the Doctor means the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then I desire to know where he reads that passives in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forming verbals in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in his sence upon the account of being such passives Indeed it may happen and does often that a Verb in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a neuter signification and consequently is used in a neuter sence but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Verb perfectly passive coming from a perfect active and consequently that all passive Greek verbs should be observable to be of the nature as he saies of the Hebrew Hithpael is such an observation as none could ever before discern but Doctor Hammond who both here and all over his Book by much hending his sight creates objects at pleasure oâ— else by an extraordinary faculty sees things thaâ— are not no not even so much as in their causeâ—… Lastly whereas the word was out of controversie between us and good enough before he medled with it he has made it by his unnecessary scruing it speak perfect nonsence as is manifest by the plain link of consequences which evidently follow out of the nice sence which maugre all Grammar he will needs give it Foâ— that I may be allowed to speak rigorously and critically when I am examining a Criticisme if it signifie
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 preiudice his Cause or touch the Question advances at length towards the Controversie it self but with the same reeling-pace as formerly In which he continues throughout the whole progress of this Chapter with such a rambling career as if what he had said hitherto were but preparatives to absurdness or but nonsence in jest which here being come to the point he more exactly performs in earnest Which if my Answer to this Chapter do not plainly demonstrate I will submit my self willingly to be branded by the Readers censure for a most unjust Calumniator But if it do then let him think of Mr. Hammonds manner of proceeding and his cause as they shall be found to deserve And first stumbling at the Threshold he expects that the Church should produce evidence for her own or her supreme Head's Authority in England Which since it is confessed by all sides That the Pope was in quiet possession of such a Primacy it no more belongs to us to prove just then it doth to the Emperor who had derived the succession of his right from a long train of Ancestors to evidence his title to the Kingdom ere he can punish a Rebel It is wonderful the Doctor should be ignorant of that which all the world knows and acknowledges to wit That a long-setled possession is of it self a proof until the contrary be evinced so as he who should deny the Authority of such an Emperor were truly and properly a seditious person and you for the same Reasons truly and properly Schismaticks unless he can produce sufficient that is evident Causes and Reasons why he refused obedience to that Emperor and you why you denied subjection to the Pope who as you were told before was not less found in a quiet and long-acknowledged possession of Primacy in England nay much more then any Emperor or King in Christendom was of his Crown to wit even by your own grants for the space of eight or nine hundred years Neither imagin that the Modern Protestants who finde the Pope outed from his Jurisdiction in England are therefore excusable from their Fore-fathers Schism For however changeableness of humane affairs and pretence that Temporal Laws were constituted and are disannulable by men may render such rights and titles obnoxious to alienation or alteration and so cause a deseazance of any obedience formerly due to a secular Governor Yet if Christ himself hath constituted any Authority and enjoyned obedience to it no length of time no vicissitude of secular Affairs nor intercession of humane Laws can ever disoblige from this duty So that it lies still as freshly as at the first breach encharg'd upon the Protestants under the 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 will have it our first evidence he goes about to confute in this Chapter But first in big terms he layes out an ample Narration how King Henry the Eighth the Universities and Parliament not onely said but testified under their Hands and Seals nay more saith the Doctor took their Corporal Oaths on it that the Pope was not Head of the Church and All this saith Mr. Hammond is lookâ— on and condemned as an act of Schism in this Church and Nation What a piece of wit is here This is the very thing for which we accuse your Church and Nation of Schism and you by a bare Narration that it was done think it seems to have half proved it was lawfully done And all this said seal'd and sworn by a King Parliament and Universities is enough to amaze a vulgar-headed Reader into a belief That their Votes could not be other then true And I doubt not but the Doctor himself wonders That the whole Catholick Church should be so unreasonable as not to grant and think her self ever to have taught and the whole world ever to have believed a lie rather then to judge so uncharitably That a lustful and tyrannical King with some number of his Subjects partly out of flattery partly out of fear adhearing to him though these not a handful in comparison of the even-then-present Christian World should say seal and swear a falshood Especially the cause of the breach being most notorious to the whole world not to have been Conscience but vicious and unlawful pretences And on the other side multitudes of conscientious and learned men opposing it and many laying down their dearest lives in testimony of the contrary truth whose taking the Affirmative upon their deaths is more to be believed then the other true taking it upon their Corporal Oaths Among those who died in defence of the Popes Supremacy was our renowned and worthy Countryman Sir Thomas More whose esteem for Piety Learning and Prudence as the King professed was so eminent That his subscription alone if it could be procured was worth half the Realms Yet this so notorious acting and commencing of Schism though sprung from unlawful lust and managed with most cruel tyranny the Doctor seems to think so laudable that the very mentioning it will something conduce to justifie a Schismatick All this saith he is looked on and condemned as an act of Schism in this Church and Nation Next he proceeds to state the Question by branching the Objection into many parts which the Doctor will needs have belong to us to manifest ere the Objection will have any force So as possession beyond memory is of no force with him which yet is the basis of all the firm peace this poor world enjoys and the ground upon which every man remains quietly instated in his own When such a possession is once setled all Controversies are silenced when it is question'd a gap is open'd to all litigiousness Necessity therefore and evidence must both be pleaded ere any one can justly quarrel with this Nurse of Peace Yet the Church must plead her Evidence saith the Doctor that is Seem to bring in question her own longpossessed Title and at whose Bar think you must she plead it At no other then that of her quondam Sons and Subjects and now Rebels and Enemies But the Doctor most unfortunately accurate in his Divisions tells us That we must manifest first the matter of fact that thus it was in England Secondly The consequence of that fact that it were Schism supposing those Successors of Saint Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ. As for the first The Reader I doubt not will smile at the Doctors folly in telling us we are to manifest that which no man living ever denied and which himself immediately before and far more largely hereafter relates and acknowledges For who
be wiser in interpreting Scripture then all the world besides and who will not stick when they want better shifts to delude your eyes with obtruding their own forgeries and sillilycritical explications as doth this Doctor for most absolute EVIDENCES Awake then as you tender your Souls endless good or misery awake and let these gross-absurdities with which they impose upon you rouze you from the Lethargy of such an easie credulity Wisely bethink your selves in time how unsafe it is to relie on the bare Authority of their slippery interpretations and relinquish the sence of the whole Catholick world Which both possesses a thousand Motives they dare not lay claim to and even in their own pretence which is the right interpreting of Scripture ought in all reason to have infinite advantages Of this dear Reader I thought good to admonish thee by the way in which if I may seem to have said too much the Doctor will make my words good in the process of this work and if I have now complain'd for nothing he will give me cause ere he ends this Chapter to complain for something But ere I proceed I desire the Reader to heed attentively what is in question and what is granted It is granted that Saint Peter preach'd to those of the Circumcision or Jews and for the more particular fruit which by Gods especial assistance he found and the more pains he took amongst them was called their Apostle As also that St. Paul preached to the Gentiles and for the greater cooperation he experienced of Gods assistance in that work which made him more particularly addict himself to them he thence had the appellation of the Apostle of the Gentiles as he himself clearly explicates himself in the place the Doctor alleages Gal. 2. 7 8. where he gives the reason why the Jews more particularly belonged to St. Peter and the Gentiles to him in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he that wrought with Peter for the Apostleship of the Circumcision wrought with me also â—…mongst the Gentiles Where the particle Forâ—… manifestly renders the reason why these tâ—… Apostles were more properly particularized 〈◊〉 these two parts of the world to wit by 〈◊〉 other designation then the more especial câ—â—operation of Gods efficacious assistance as 〈◊〉 yet more plainly shown in the ninth Verse 〈◊〉 the same Chapter This therefore is evideâ—… 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 thâ—… is whether the Jews were so particularly St. Peters Province that his Authority was limited to them so that he neither did nor coulâ—… intermeddle in the conversion of the Gentileâ—… that is had no jurisdiction over them anâ—… the contrary of St. Paul This is the Doctoâ—… Position from whence he takes his first Evidence against St. Peters Universal Pastorship That this Apostle was Apostles of the Circumcisiâ—… or Iews Exclusively to the Uncircumcision or Gentiles Which Assertion is so shamelesly false sâ—… 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 promisâ—… 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 excludeâ— St. Peters Authority from the Gentiles more then what this man puts in his of own head I will be content to yeeld him the whole Controversie And may not a Doctor of Divinity be asham'd such a proffer should be made him in those very proofs of his which he would bear the Reader in hand are most perfect Evidences And first his pretended place of Scripture â—al â— 7. which we have before explicated â—nely says That the Apostleship of the Iews or Circumcision was committed to St. Peter but â—hat it was of the Iews onely or none but them â—o as by the particular Commission to convert â—â—em he lost or was excluded from any jurisdiction over the Gentiles which is the Doctors â—ffertion and can onely advantage his cause â—…ere is neither in that place nor any where â—…se the least syllable Whereas it is impossible 〈◊〉 should not see that the contrary to wit that 〈◊〉 Peter both had Authority and did preach 〈◊〉 the Gentiles was as manifest in Scripture as 〈◊〉 Sun at Noon-day half the eleventh Chapâ—… of the Acts being employed in a most exâ—…ss Narration of St. Peters vision exhorâ—…ing â—…n to preach to the Gentiles which he accordingly did and went immediately by an espeâ—… Mission of God to convert Cornelius a Genâ—… where he preached to him and his whole â—…se As also St. Peter in the Council at Ieruâ—…m affirmed saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God hath chosen amongst us that the Gentiles should hear the â—…d of the Gospel by my mouth and believe What 〈◊〉 we think now of this Doctor who puts â—…vident out of Scripture that St. Peter had no authority to preach to the Gentiles where as the Scripture expresly says He was chose out of the rest and particularly authorized so that end Is this man fit to be accounted 〈◊〉 expounder of Gods Word who thus wilfull perverts and purposely contradicts it Besides if St. Peter were made Apostle 〈◊〉 the Jews Exclusively to the Gentiles by the same reason St. Paul was made Apostle of 〈◊〉 Gentiles Exclusively to the Jews For the woâ—… alleaged Gal. 2. 7. The Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me as the Gospel of 〈◊〉 Circumcision was to Peter upon which onâ—… the Doctor builds this Tenet equally inserâ—… Exclusiveness of jurisdiction in one as in 〈◊〉 other over his fellow Apostles Province as 〈◊〉 Particle As signifies and the Doctor himâ—… confesses Section seven unless the word peculiar must lose its signification Yet it is 〈◊〉 evident that St. Paul where ever he caâ—… preached first to the Jews as appears most evidently Acts 13. 5. 14. 1. 17. 1 2 3. whâ—… it is said That it was St. Pauls manner or câ—… to go into the Iews Synagogue and preach Châ—… Faith Also Acts 20. 18 21. where St. Paul sâ—… of himself That ever since he came into Asia witnessed both to the Iews and Grecians the 〈◊〉 pentance towards God and Faith towards Châ—… Likewise Acts 19. 8. 21. 21. where the formation against St. Paul was That he tâ—… all the Iews such and such things that follâ—… there So Acts 22. the whole Chapter alâ—… being a Sermon of his to the Iews Again 〈◊〉 24. 24. 28. 23. where we finde that 〈◊〉 at Rome St. Paul preached to the Iews 〈◊〉 And now let the Reader judge if this be â—… most steel'd impudence thus point-blank and diametrically opposite to the whole stream of Scripture and onely upon his bare word to impale and confine the Authority of the Apostles to mutually-exclusive
and contradistinct Jurisdictions and all this meerly out of malice forsooth against the Pope to cut short his Authority as he is Successor of St. Peter These are the Evidences dear Countrymen your Doctors bring you to secure your Souls from the most dangerous sin of Schism SECT 9. Some Consequences out of the Doctors 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 anothers right else this preparative ground will make nothing to the Doctor 's purpose Consequently to this foundation laid in the fifth Paragraph he begins the sixth thus If the Circumcision or Iewish Christians were peculiarly St. Peters Province and Section seven the Gentile Christians peculiarly St. Pauls c. Now if this Doctor will stand to these grounds thus laid I would gladly ask What becomes of the rest of the Apostles Must they stand by and look on while St. Paul converts all the Gentiles and St. Peter all the Iews You dare not say That they were subordinate to St. Peter and St. Paul that would endanger a kinde of primacy in jurisdiction Will you say then they onely help◠them That sounds dangerously still and intimates some principality in the others allowing them no jurisdiction at all but as far as the others please to accept of their aid You must say then that these Provinces of St. Peter and St. Paul were promiscuously and indifferently given to the rest But the main Pillars of your Evidences I mean your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you say all the Apostles had and which apply'd to St. Peter and St. Paul you will have to signifie peculiar and exclusively-proper Provinces will not bear apply'd to the rest of the Apostles the sence of a promiscuous authority It onely remains then that they have no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is no exclusive jurisdiction or peculiar Province at all and therefore nothing at all to do Thus this courteous Doctor hath by his acute way of reasoning infinitely obliged the rest of the Apostles in freeing them from the hard and laborious task their Master enjoyn'd them and getting them all leave to play Nor hath he less obliged the Pope if it proceeded from good-will in him and not from malice and ignorance for indistributing between St. Peter and St. Paul the Diocess of the whole world he hath at unawares confirm'd the Pope their Successor to be the Universal Pastor of the whole Christian world since it is most certain and by the Doctor acknowledged That the Bishops of Rome beginning with Clemens succeeded them both in that Chair and See But is it not a pretty thing that in his Section six contrary to the grounds he had laid himself and having no other reason but his own conjecture he cramps the vast jurisdiction of that Bishop Apostle and our Saviours 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 him so much he balks his former too liberal donation to St. Peter of the Lydian Asia and bestows it on St. Iohn But me thinks I hear the Doctors Evidences call aloud upon us to lend them a due consideration which therefore especially the world being now adays so scant of demonstrations it were an infinite wrong to the advancement of Sciences carelesly to omit And first he evidences That St. Peter had no Primacy at Ierusalem where St. Iames sate or as he terms it Singular Supremacy By which expression if he would say St. Peter was not particular Bishop of that place it needs no evidencing But if he intends such a Primacy as is pretended St. Peter had what means the word Singular or how does the Doctor so quite take off all pretensions of St. Peter to such a Supremacy as he brags pag. 73 Because forsooth 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. Peters greater Authority that he took other two with him since it is well known an Archbishop going to consecrate a Bishop takes two other Bishops with him and yet it follows not hence that an Archbishop hath no higher degree of Authority than the Bishops O but he findes St. Iames named before St. Peter Gal. 2. 9. and that doubtless he fancies to be an invincible Evidence not considering that if that argument were allow'd any weight his cause were lost since in most if not all other places in the Scripture St. Peter is constantly named first of all the Apostles Lastly he tells us that St. Iames had the Principal place in the Council of Jerusalem where St. Peter is present and ACCORDINGLY gives the sentence Acts 15 19. upon which the Rescript is grounded Where first that St. Iames had the principal place is a pitiful guessing Assertion of his own without the least pretence of a Testimony and yet he puts the word Principal in other letters as a main business Next whereas he alleages that St. Iames gave the Sentence and then quotes Acts 15. 19. I finde onely that St. Iames after he had produced his Reasons sayes Wherefore my sentence is c. But the Doctor turns my sentence which can onely signifie his opinion or judgment in the matter into the sentence which sounds a conclusive definition and decision of a business under debate No wiser nor honester is his next Assertion that the Rescript is grounded upon St. Iames his sentence in particular citing for it Ver. 22. of the same Chapter but there is nothing there particularizing St. Iames but onely that Then to wit after St. Peter St. Paul Barnabas and St. Iames had spoken it seemed good to the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church c. And upon what grounds can this demonstrative Doctor affirm That the Rescript was grounded particularly upon St. Iames his sentence and thence deduce his priority of dignity when as it is manifest to any one that shall read the Chapter that St. Peters sentence was the same with St. Iames in the main matter controverted both concurring that the Gentiles should be freed from the grievous burthen of Circumcision And although the abstaining from Fornication things strangled and blood be found in St. Iames his sentence onely yet how can this argue a
undeniably evident For it was never said to Iames Iohn Philip c. in particular by name and in the singular I will give thee the Keys much less after such a solemn manner as was to St. Peter First With a particular blessing and encomium of him Blessed art thou in the singular Simon Bar jona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father which is in Heaven Then alluding to his name in particular And I say unto thee again the singular that Tu es Petrus c Thou art Peter and super hanc Petram upon this Rock will I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Then follows And I will give unto thee still in the singular the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. Necessarily therefore it must be granted That something was said to St. Peter in particular and that solemnly and upon particular occasion sprung from St. Peters own person Vers. 16. which was not said to any other Apostle in particular And since this saying was a promise it follows That a promise of some thing was made to St. Peter in particular Wherefore seeing this thing promised was the giving the Keys of Heaven it follows that the promise of giving the Keys of Heaven was made to St. Peter in particular Neither will the Doctors proving that they were given afterwards in common to the rest prejudice this at all for there is no difficulty but the same thing may be given to many in common and yet to some one of those many in a more particular manner Now then this promise being made not onely to all the Apostles in general but also to St. Peter in particular it is most consonant to reason and worthy our Saviour not onely to perform his promise but also to perform it according to the tenor and manner in which he promised But the Doctor cannot or will not finde any performance in particular but wholly omits it and indeed it was dangerous for it was our best and most express Testimony and instead of it produces onely a performance to them all in general Whereas Iohn 21. 15 16 17. he might have seen it expresly recommended and encharged upon St. Peter particularly and by name once twice thrice with as many repetitions of his name particularizing him over and over Feed my Lambs Feed my sheep feed my sheep And least such an one as Mr. Hammond should after so many expresly-peculiar designations doubt yet there might be an equality our B. Saviour asks St. Peter Amas me plus his Dost thou love me more then these which manifestly puts a particularity comparison and inequality in Saint Peter from and above the rest of the Apostles in the interrogatory and therefore the inference upon its resolution Feed my sheep encharged upon him as an argument of this greater love and the cause of this trust must in good consequence of reason be unequal and particular in Saint Peter in comparison of the other Apostles These and some others are the Testimonies from Scripture which to speak with the least every impartial man will see that even taken in themselves they sound much to our advantage and the prejudice of our Adversaries but interpreted by the Catholick Church according to her never-erring rule of Faith give us an infallible certainty that they express a Primacy in St. Peter whatever the Doctors private judgment imagines or ghesses to the contrary In a word the result of all Dr. Hammonds Answer is That our Saviour promised indeed in particular but did not perform as he had promised that is particularly but in common onely That is by such a solemn and singularly applied promise he made good St. Peter expect great matters as any man in reason would by such a carriage and then when it came to performance quite deluded his expectation giving him no more then the rest of his fellows It follows in the Doctor The applying the words particularly to Saint Peter hath one special energy in it and concludes That the Ecclesiastical power of Oeconomy or Stewardship in Christs house of which the Keys are the token Isa. 22. 21. belongs to single persons such as St. Peter was and not to Consistories or Assemblies That whatsoever St. Peter acted by virtue of Christs power thus promised he should be fully able to act himself without the conjunction of any other and that what he thus did clave non errante no one or more men on Earth could rescind without him which is a just ground of placing the power Ecclesiastical in the Prelate not in the Presbytery c. This is Master Hammonds Corollary out of the former Texts out of which ploughing with our Heiser he concludes against the Presbyterians But first since those words are particularly applied to St. Peter all that is implied in those words are particularly also appliable to him and this being the Donation of the Keyes it follows That the Donation of the Keys and whatever is consequent out of that Donation or signified by those Keys is particularly applied to him but the Keys are the token saith the Doctor of Ecclesiastical Oeconomy or Stewardship in Christs house This Office therefore must be particularly applied to St. Peter and seeing those words were no otherwise particularly applied to St. Peter then by our Saviours speaking them to him in the singular and in a singular manner as he did it follows That our Saviour told St. Peter in the singular and in a singular manner that he should be steward of his house Also since all particularizing is a kinde of exception from an universality or community and the universality or community before whom our Saviour spoke it and from whom any kinde of exception could be imagin'd to be there made was the other Apostles it follows That St. Peter was particularized out of that community for the office of Steward in Christs house Again since the Keys are the token as the Doctor proves of the Ecclesiastical Oeconomy and Stewardship in Christs house and however we read that the effect of the Keys that is power of binding and loosing was given to others yet it is no where exprest in Scripture that the Keys themselves the badge of that Office were given to the rest even in common for it s no where read â—â—bis dabo claves it follows manifestly That if our Saviour kept his word to St. Peter since he promised him the signal token of that Office of Steward he performed it to him making him Steward of his house and by the delivery of the Keys installing him in that charge so as onely St. Peter was installed and if the Doctor will needs contend the rest were he must confess withal that he hath no ground for it since he will never read either of such a promise or performance made by our Saviour that he would give the Keys themselves which onely are the badge of that Function to any of the rest Thirdly
refused to subscribe The Act it self not numbred amongst the Acts of the Council till ambition which at first receiving such a check from so grave Authority was modest growing more impudent when the reprehending and curbing power was absent legitimated that bastard-issue and pin'd it to the end of the Council as Dr. Hammond does his own sayings to the end of his Testimonies Yet the Doctor tells us He could vindicate the validity of this Canon but that he means not to go out of his way Is it out of your way Mr. Doctor to vindicate that Testimony to be valid which you object for a strong proof against us and we reject as of insufficient Authority and illegitimate In my poor judgment it lies so directly in your way that you cannot possibly do your cause better service then to clear this point else why did you produce a Testimony lying under a just Exception unless you would stick to it and maintain it It lay in your way it seems to put that large-senc'd monosyllable ALL into the Testimony that was just in your way but to make good your own weak Allegation was quite out of your way Yet you were something excusable from under-propping your Testimony if you had been better employ'd in the mean time but I finde the whole fifth Paragraph in which you wave it from the beginning to the end made up onely of your own sayings and some of those too false upon which as upon grounds you proceed with an unresistable career So as your proofs are perfect Cobwebs both the ground and the work upon it being spun out of your own bowels But instead of vindicating it you first quarrel with us for strange dealing in not admitting any Testimony against us but wherein we have given our own suffrage which you call A method of security beyond all amulets c. Thus the Doctor plausibly indeed if his Readers were fools otherwise nothing can sound more unconsonantly For either the Pope is head of the Church or no If he suppose negatively then he plainly begs the Question which hangs yet in dispute and then upon this supposition I will grant it is not onely strange dealing but injustice usurpation tyranny impiety or whatever he will or else the Pope was and is Head of the Church and then the Doctors words may be objected as well to any Governor or any man living as to the Pope and it is not strange dealling but very good reason That he should refuse to subscribe to an Act endamaging the Canons of the Church it being his duty and obligation to keep them inviolate And if Pope Leo could in reason reject it then when one siding and self-interessed part of the Council had voted it we can with as good reason reject it now when Dr. Hammond alleages it SECT 2. THe Doctors next EVIDENCE that the Pope is not Head of the Church is from a Canon in the Council of Ephesus where saith Mr. Hammond the independency of Cyprus not onely from the Patriarch of Antioch but from all others whomsoever was contested then as from the Apostles times c. Thus the Doctor desirous to make the Reader believe that Cyprus had no kinde of Dependency on any one whomsoever Though the Testimony it self contests no more but that from the Apostles time they could never show That the Bishop of Antioch was there Et ordinaverit vel communicaverit unquam Insulae ordination is gratiam neque alius quisquam that is And ordain'd or conferred the grace of Ordination upon that Iâ—and nor any other The Testimony speaks onely That neither the Patriarch nor any other ordained there the Doctor interprets it That Cyprus was independent on the Patriarch of Antioch or any one whomsoever Which is not ingenuously done for there may be a dependency of subjection to the Jurisdiction of another though they never received from that other their Ordination Thus you see the Doctor seldom brings us an account of any Testimony but less or more he will be sure to enflame the reckoning But the Council exempted Cyprus from the peculiar subjection to a private Patriarch in particular True but is there any thing exprest there That either Cyprus or the Patriarch of Antioch himself were exempted from the Obedience or Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as Publick Head of the Church or was the Popes Primacy there called in question This should have been exprest to make good your inference But of this we have not so much as a syllable nor any thing that can deduce it since the I le of Cyprus might well have been exempted from the obedience of any particular Patriarch and yet both it and the Patriarchs themselves subjected to one Chief or Head of the Church As there may be some free State or City in Europe independent of any particular Kingdom or Province and yet both that State and all the Kingdoms and Provinces in Europe dependent or subject to the Universal Rule of an Emperor who is Lord of the whole Yet the Doctor hath not done with us thus he hath another fling at us out of this Council of Ephesus which determined saith the Doctor That no Bishop shall encroach upon anothers Province or usurp a power where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it Which how directly adds the Doctor it prejudgeth the pretensions of Rome is so manifest that it cannot need farther demonstrating This therefore being Dr. Hammonds PRIMUM PRINCIPIUM first Principle which is so evident by the light of nature and cannot need farther demonstrating it were not amiss if we put it in a Syllogism to let the Reader see how unavoidably the Doctor deduces a break-neck conclusion to the cause of Rome out of it The Argument then stands thus The Canon of Ephesus constitutes That nâ—… Bishop shall encroach upon anothers Province oâ—… usurp a power where from the Apostles time hâ—… had not enjoyed it But the Pope must Dr. Hammond subsume hath encroacht upon anothers Province and usurpt a power where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it Therefore his pretensions are prejudiced by this Canon of Ephesus Where as every childe may see nothing follows out of the words of the Council against the Pope which are the Major until the Doctor makes good his Minor That the Pope hath thus encroached c. Yet this being all that belongs to him to prove he either supposes as a first principle though it be the onely thing in controversie or else begs of us to grant him gratis and then tells us the Conclusion is so manifest it cannot need farther demonstrating Surely he was afraid here also to go out of his way and with good reason for had he gone about to evidence his Minor he would never have arrived at his Conclusion After this most palpable and evident demonstration he gives us two instances of the same alloy One of the Archbishop of Carthage whom the Emperor Iustinian made equal in
and Schism And though the Doctor excuses the imputation of King Henries Sacriledge saying That Sacriledge is no more Schism then it is Adultery yet it is enough if he grant as he must That both his Sacriledge and his Schism were born of the same mother-occasion the Kings lust and so though the Doctor say That 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 shew that the first occasion of the breach was not Conscience The King himself desired oftentimes afterwards a reconcilement which being not possible without revoking all he had done despair made him resolve Over shooes over boots to make the rupture still wider while he lived though at his death when it was no time to dally the care of his Soul now out-weighing the pleasure of his Body he with extream grief of heart repented him of his Schism By this one may see how justly the Doctor pretended Pag. 18 19 as an excuse of his Schism The care of their Conscience and the 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 then I cannot conceive the Church obliged the ring leader of it to any sin in bidding him keep his own wife But if you pretend another which by the whole scope of this Chapter you seem not to do it will be found to have no nobler an extraction then the former onely perhaps the carnal sin in him may be changed into a spiritual one in you that is King Henries lust into your self-conceited pride and refractory disobedience which may indeed outâ—vy and excel him though not excuse you But perhaps your grounds which before absolved the Rebel Out law and Anabaptist will absolve him too by saying it was King Henries present perswasion that his wife was to be put away and then comes in the whole eighth Paragraph of the second Chapter to plead for the adulterous King thus Nay though the error be really on his side yet if the doctrines so proposed that he ought to keep his wife as the condition of Communion be indeed agreeable to truth but yet be really apprehended by him to whom they are thus proposed to be false and disagreeable it will even in that case be hard to affirm That that man may lawfully subscribe or Kâ—-Henry lawfully keep his wife contrary to his present perswasion Thus much for the first thing I undertook to shew that the original of this breach proceeded not from Conscience the second will also appear no less manifest That the progress and promoting of it was altogether as unconsciencious The second consideration which renders this Schism more inexcusable in the now Protestants is That when it first was brought into this Kingdom it was no free choice of the Ecclesiastical State which could the Doctor prove he would think it perhaps of some weight The King using all means both by perswasions and force to make men subscribe persecuting continually those that refused and putting to death many upon the same score among the rest those two Lights of our Nation for learning and piety Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moor most intimate with the King and in the sincerest loyalty addicted to him till their knowing conscienciousness made them refuse to subscribe lest they might at once prejudice Loyalty and Religion by a preposterous obedience But what need more proofs since the Doctor grants here Section five That it is easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them could probably have inclined the Clergy to subscribe thus he Though blowing and supping both at once he striaght-way addes That the Reasons or Arguments offered in debate were the causes as in all charity we are to judge of their decision Whereas I cannot see any reason why the Doctor should be so uncharitably charitable as to judge them not onely weak but to have been hardned and lost for the future all feeling of Conscience for their lapse since the fore-going fear bears the weight of a strong prejudice against the clear Verdict of Conscience and the future recantation of all the Bishops who then subscribed in Queen Maries time and their persisting in Queen Elizabeths days rather evidences That the curb being removed which misled them it was Conscience which made them return and strength and force of Conscience which made them afterwards persevere in the same judgment The third thing I am to prove and make the Doctor confess is That there was a breach made which denominates them truly and properly Schismaticks The first part is so clear that it needs no proof since the very deed bears witness For first your self acknowledge you renounced the Authority of the Roman See and cast it out of this Iland Which Authority yet you must acknowledge likewise That all the whole World which before the breach you held the onely good Christians submitted to as sacred and descended from Christs institution which Authority was known and held both by them and your selves till then to be over both you and your King in Ecclesiastical matters and had enjoyed the possession of that Claim confessedly eight or nine hundred years nor this upon title onely of a Patriarchate your Conversion or Grant of Kings but of an Universal Primacy and Pastorship over the whole Church by Christs grant and before your conversion was dream'd on Lastly The Government of the Church thus established was held by all those whom before that day you accounted the onely Faithful as of Divine Right and a point of Faith and that the denial of it twisted into one crime both Heresie and Schism A manifest breach then and Schism there was made by you first from that supreme Ecclesiastical Governor under whom both you and your Ancestors till that time had ever-continued and next from the Universality of Christians by erecting to your selves a new structure of Church-Government which all the vast Congregation of these from whom you broke detested and abhorred as Sacrilegious and Schismatical Singularity therefore most clearly manifested it self in your new Church-Government and if singularity be opposite to a community of which Communion is the Form it follows evidently That your singularity destroyed Communion and so was formally Schism Again if multitudes of things of the same species cannot be made one otherwise then by the unity of order it follows That what dissolves this order dissolves the unity and so causes a breach or Schism But you manifestly unravelled all the then constituted order of Gods Church by casting out of the Kingdom the supreme Authority in which as in a knot the other several ends were sum'd and tied up therefore you also unravelled and broke asunder its unity This then as it is acknowledged by you so in it self is
by his former words brought the matter at length to a finall decision The question is whether it be sitting the Pope should rule over the whole Church which none denies but a few schismatical Princes he comes to take up the controversie and tels us those very Princes for all Catholike Princes have already determined the contrary must decide the truth of the businesse As if an Umpire being to arbitrate a quarrel about the Authority of the Vice-chancellour of Oxford opposed by the Major his Competitor should take up the businesse by saying it was a politick probleme belonging to the Government of the University and so ought to bee decided by none but the Major SECT 2. Of Dr. Hammonds evasion in recurring to the first 300. yeares 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 concernes Faith he is come to treat next of the second part of that first species of mutual Charity which concernes Faith to wit of the particular doctrines in Faith in which he sayes he doubts not but to approve himselfe to any that will judge of the Apostolical Doctrines and Traditions by the Scriptures and consent of the first 300. years or the four General Councils c. which is a very plausible and pithy piece of shuffling expressing a plain tergiversation from approving himselfe willing to do any thing but to wave and shift the Question For first we must judge of Apostolical doctrines and Traditions by Scripture I ask are those doctrines clearer exprest in Scripture than they are in the depositories of the Churches by which he told us before they were brought down to us or no If they be clearer in Scripture what needed we those depositives at all and to what end does that Apostolical Providence serve If not how can we judge of them by Scripture which speakes more obscurely of them Again since we must judge of Apostolical doctrines by Scripture what rules does the Doctor give us to settle our judgement when things are cleare in Scripture and when not for we see many men who govern themselves by fancy think that evident which another judges to have no apparence of truth And for my part I even despair of bringing clearer proofes from Scripture than that S. Paul converted Iewes and S. Peter Gentiles which yet you saw could give the nice Doctor no satisfaction Another tergiversation is his standing onely to the first 300. yeares where the Authors being scarce by reason of the Churches obscure state under persecution and hardly any occasion to speak of the late risen controversies between us he hopes no great matter can be concluded against him thence where scarce any thing is found that concernes our quarrel As if being to fight a Duel with an Adversary he would stand to the appointment of no place and time but onely in a wildernesse and a dark night where they might be sure never to meet or being met never see one another No better is his standing to the four first Councils onely which were all call'd upon other occasions and so touch not any point of debate between us except onely on the by and therefore obscurely the best testimonies out of which have been already objected by him and solved by us But why onely foure since all Councils are of equal Authority there being nothing found to authorize the first foure but was found in the fifth sixth c. So that this challenge of the Drs. is all one as if an Arian Heretick would be judged by no place in Scripture whether Christ were God or no but out of the Proverbs of Solomon where nothing is found concerning that point dilating much upon the praises of Solomon and what a most pure and uncorrupted piece of Scripture that Book is but producing no Evidence in the world why the other Books of Scripture were not as pure and sacred as it But the Doctor escapes not so he has engag'd himselfe by this as he thought secure grant further than he imagines His allowing of foure Councils to examine his Faith by is an acknowledgement that he admits the Authority of Councils as sacred and binding He must either then shew EVIDENCE that the 5th Council erred or that the Church and her Pastors had declined from the faith of the foregoing Age or else he is obliged to accept it and so the rest under the penalty of forfeiting the title of a good Christian for no lesse blot will fall to his share who rejects an Authority held sacred by himselfe without most clear Evidence of a just exception As he who acknowledges the Authority of Parliament by admitting the Acts of some as valid Lawes is bound by the very acknowledgment of some to accept all the rest unless an open Evidence convince their Votes not to have been free or that there was some other known defect in the managing of them Onely in this latter a far lesse Evidence will serve the turn the Authority of Parliament being but humane whereas the other was held and acknowledged to bee sacred But indeed the truth is hee accepts not even of those four because he thinks Councils to be of Authority but because he thinks there is no doctrine in these against his Fancy or Faith or if any he hopes he can make a shift to shuffle it off In the mean time gaining a very great patronage and countenance to his cause in pleading it relies on such highly authoriz'd supports No candider than the former is his evasion of being judged by the purest Ages which in reality signifies onely such times wherein nothing was treated against those heresies which afterwards cling'd together to compound Protestantism This is manifest by his admitting 300. yeares next after Christ no more by which he excludes the fourth and fifth Ages yet at pleasure admits the fourth General Council held about the middle of the fifth Age. So that the whole Church must be imagin'd to be first pure then impure afterwards pure again according as the supposition of it suits best for the Doctors purpose If none of their particular heresies were rife and therefore not condemned in the first obsure 300. years presently the Dr. cries up those Ages for pure But the Church in the next Age having now got rid of persecution became pester'd with home-bred factions and heresies which made the Fathers of the Church take pen in hand vigorously confuting them and some of the Doctors tenets among the rest Hereupon the Doctor presently decries that Age as impure popish corrupted But then in the middle of the fifth age was call'd a Council which chanced to treat nothing professedly of the errours afterwards 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
unity of Church-government then not onely we but all the Angels and Saints in heaven who rejoyce at the conversion of sinners shall joyn in exalting Jubilees for the Blessed and long wish't for return of òur wandring and self-disinherited Brethren The former of these if Mr. Hammond will not beleeve it I have told him where he may see it as visibly as is possible any thing should be made to the eye of Reason The latter to wit the Popes Supremacy is defin'd in the Florentine Council subscribed to both by the Greek and Latine Churches where what the fourth General Council held at Chalcedon wrote to Pope Leo that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was over the members of the Church as their Head is more plainly exprest in these words Wee define that the holy Apostolical See and the Bishop of Rome have the primacy over all the world and that the Bishop of Rome is Successour to S. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and truly Christs Vicar and Head of the whole Church and the Father and Teacher of all Christians and that there was given him in S. Peter from Christ a full power to feed direct and govern the Catholike Church To these two points if the Protestant will subscribe that is secure inviolate that which touches the root and most vital and intrinsecal part of the Chruch to wit the Rule of Faith she will not stick to open her outward rind that is offer some violence to her uniformity in indifferent and more extrinsecal practises to re-ingraft their dry and sapless branch which now lies withering into her ever-flourishing body To which if these poor endeavours of mine may in the least contribute I shall for the future not reprehend but congratulate Dr. Hammond for his fortunate Errours and honour his ill grounded reasons as of richest value which by stirring up others to detest them and shew what weak pleas are producible for Schism became the happy occasion of his own and others salvation and of Embosoming the Daughter-Church of England in a Charitable Communion with her dearest Mother by whose painful throwes she was first born to Christ her Spouse at whose breasts shee suck'd the first milk of his Doctrine and from whose arms and ever-cherishing embraces first by the malignity of an ill-govern'd passion next by humane policy shee has been so long separated FINIS DOWN-DERRY OR Bishop BRAMHAL'S Iust Vindication of the Church of England refuted MY choice at first directed me rather to answer Mr. Hammond than my Lord of Derry having observ'd 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 advanc'd past the mid-way of my journey I met some Protestant friends who though formerly they had still cry'd up the Doctor yet soon as I told them in confidence that an Answer to his Schism would instantly bee 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 exprest how weak and unreasonable their discourse was which if admitted would always judg 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 leasure 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 Bishops Book I find that as there is much commendable in it for industry so is it expos'd to an unavoidable Check of being Patron to an ill Cause whence it may bee a pattern of wit and labour but little assistance to the truth further than by shewing how weak Errour is But not to spend time and paper in vain let us state the controversie clearly that it may be seen how strongly and pertinently his Discourse proceeds Not that I intend minutely to examine his whole Work whereof the far greater part is little or nothing to our controversie as will appear by the bare stating the Question but onely 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 Catholike Church And that this crime is justly charg'd upon his Church not onely 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 bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them to bee 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 priviledge 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 lesse evident that in the dayes 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 Churchs who continue in Communion with the Roman are the onely Churches which in vertue of the first Principle above mentioned have the true Doctrine and in vertue of the second the right Government and in vertue of both the unity and incorporation into the Church of Christ necessary for salvation And by consequence Wee hold them onely to make the entire Catholike or Universal Church of Christians all others by misbelief or Schism being excluded Now because no understanding man can deny this to be