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
as clear as the most palpable matter of Fact can make a thing visible to the eyes of the World that there was indeed at least a material breach or Schism by you made from that Body which communicated with the Church of Rome and of which Body you were formerly as properly and truly a part as a Branch is of a Tree To which adde your proofs out of the Fathers in your first Chapter affirming No just cause can be given for a Schism and it will follow that your own words clearly convince and your own proofs evidently conclude you to be formally Schismaticks I will put the Argument in form to make it more plain onely premising That material Schism as far as it concerns us at present is the extern action of breaking from a community Formal the causlesness or unjustifiableness of that material Fact which must needs be criminal because it admits no just excuse to plead in its behalf Then thus No Separation from the whole Body of Christians can possibly be justified say the Fathers by you alleaged Chap. 1. Sect. 8. But your Separation was from the whole Body of Christians Therefore impossible to be justified Where all the evasion I can imagin in your behalf is to distinguish the Major That the Fathers meant Criminal Separation or the Crime of Schism could have no just cause given for it not the material and external fact of Schism But first this makes the Fathers very shallow to go about to shew That no just cause can be alleaged for the crime of Schism since every one knows there can be no just excuse possible for any crime Next the Fathers there alleaged pretend to particularize some special viciousness in Schism and are to that end produced by the Doctor But there is no speciality in Schism above other sins to say That no just excuse can be given for the crime of it since the like may be said of all sins as well as it The fact of Schism therefore it is which they call unjustifiable the same fact which with a large narration you here set down and acknowledge that they said it voted it swore it taking a great deal of pains to prove those whom you undertook to defend to be voluntary deliberate and sworn Schismaticks Now all the Testimonies alleaged by your self against Schism come in troops bandying against you and your cause as strongly as if they had been expresly gathered to that purpose As that a Schismatick is à semet-ipso damnatus self-condemned which you have here very learnedly performed as I lately shewed That ultrò ex Ecclesia se eâ—icerent they cast themselves voluntarily out of the Church c. Quomodo tâ— Ã tot gregibuâ— scidisti Excidisti enim teipsum How hast thon cut off thy self from so many flocks For thy self hast cut off thy self of which accusation your fifth Paragraph infers the confession Your own voluntary recession from us and our Government by your self here acknowledged is an indelible token and as it were a visible ear-mark that you are a stray sheep and a run-away à toâ— gregibus from the flock This badg of a Voluntary Recession your Church must always necessarily carry about her Nor will you ever be able to wipe it off with all the specious Id Ests or Criticisms your wit can invent SECT 9. The nature of Schism fetch t from it's first grounds and the material part of it fastened upon the Protestants TO lay this charge of Schisme yet more home to the Protestants we will open more clearly the nature of Schism and describe it more exactly that the Reader may see how perfectly the Protestant Church is cast in the mold of it For the better conceiving of which it will be necessary to shew first what it is which makes the Sons of the Catholike Church like brethren live together in Unity and this will lead us into the consideration first of the formal Unity it self and secondly of the Reason and Ground of this Unity The Unity it selfe consists in two things one is the submitting to and communicating in one common Head or Government the Authority of which if it be establish't in an undoubted possession as it was at the beginning of Mr. Drs Reformation is as necessary to the Ecclesiastical Community as the acknowledgement of the Undoubted Supreme Magistrate is necessary for the Unity of any temporal Common-wealth The second is the communication of the member-churches with one another consisting in the acknowledging the same Articles of Faith and using the same Sacraments c. To these was added anciently communicatory letters which afterwards by reason of the perfect colligation of the several members with their Head was neglected as unnecessary And these two Unities may be conceived again either negatively or positively By negative Communion in the same Head I mean a not disacknowledging only of the supreme Pastor or at least such an indifferent acknowledgment as having no tie upon it may be at pleasure refused and the Authority rejected As likewise negative communication between the member-Churches imports either a â—leight not denying of communion or such an acceptance and embracing of it as having no obligation may at pleasure be turned into disacceptance and disavowing On the contrary these two communications are then called positive when there is a positive obligation to acknowledge that Head and communicate with the other Churches And this is that which can only make a Church and found Church-government Or rather indeed there can be no Government imaginable either spiritual or corporal without such positive communion for a company of men without an expresse and positive obligation to obey their Superiors and comport themselves towards their fellows according to the laws may indeed be called a multitude such as is aâ—eâ—vus â—apâ—dum an heap of stones but not an Army City Commonwealth or Church which imply connexion and order Neither is the obligation of only Charity sufficient though in it selâ—e a great Ciment of Unity but it must be a visible one resulting out of the very Nature of Government which is visible and exterior Besides Charity extends universally to all even those out of the Church and therfore cannot be that proper peculiar and sole tie which unites the Faithfull as they are a Common-wealth of Beleevers The second thing is the Reason of this double Union or rather of this double positive obligation of Unity in the Church which to conceive more clearly the Reader may please to consider that a Christian is a Christian by his Faith and so a Congregation of Christians is a Community of the Faithfull Whence it followes that the Unity of the Faithfull as such being in Faith their faith must be one the ground therefore of the Unity of their faith is the ground of the Unity of the faithfull but the infallibity of the Church is the ground of the Unity of faith Therefore the same Infallibility is the reason of the Unity or positive
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
not onely overthrown ours but all Religion not onely acquitted your self of Schism but also quite taken away all possibility of being a Schismatick since no Authority can with any face or conscience oblige to a belief of which her self is not certain But I doubt not you make your self sure of the conquest not apprehending any but Saints and Angels in Heaven and God himself to be infallible To which you adde of your own invention impeccable as your custom is never to speak of our Tenet without the disgraceful addition of some forged calumny or other imposed upon us But that none else should be infallible except those you mention I much wonder I thought the Apostles had been also infallibly assisted when they pen'd the sacred Writ and peach'd the Gospel I thought also our Saviour when he sent them to teach and promised them his assistance had said He would remain with them always even till the end of the world that is with the succeeding Church I thought there had been some means to be infallibly-certain that such and such Books were Gods Word and genuine Scripture without an Angel Saint or Christs coming from Heaven or the Doctors private-spirited opinion which he will call God Neither do I doubt but the Doctor himself will grant it impossible That all the Protestants in England should be fallible or mistake in witnessing whether twenty years ago there were Protestant Bishops or no and that such was the Tenet and Government of their Church at that time Yet a thousand timeâ— greater evidence have we of the indefectibility of the Churches Faith and her infallibility As you may to your amazement see if you will but open your eyes in that incomparable Treatise of Rushworth's Dialogues vindicated from all possible confute by that excellent Apology for it writ by the learned Pen of Mr. Thomâ—â— White in his Friends behalf whose Dialogues he set forth enlarged and defended against your acute Friends Faulkland and Digby Persons who did not use to treat Controversies iâ— such a dreaming shallow way as it hath been your misfortune to do here nor stand Preaching to their adversary when they should Dispute To these Dialogues and their Apology I refer you that you may know what to do if you confute them solidly and demonstrate plainly That our Church is liable to Error you will eternally silence us and clear your selves But take heed you bring not whimpering probable may-be's and onely-self-granted suppositions for proofs These might serve your turn in your first Book which might hope for the good fortune to scape without answering but in your second and after you are told of it it will fall short of satisfactory Remember Mr. Hammond that you granted â— cheerful obedience and submission of your judgments and practices to your Superiors under penalty oâ— not being deemed true Disciples of Christ. If this be real as I wish it were then what easier condescension and deference to the judgment of Superiors can be imagined then to submit oneâ— private judgment when he has onely probability to the contrary Evidence therefore demonstrable evidence you must give in of the Churches erring ere your pretence that you were obliged by her to subscribe to Errors can take place and so excuse you from Schism But as your profession of the obligation you have to submit your judgment to the Church renders your probable Reasons insufficient to fall to judge her so God be praised your own self acknowledged fallibility will secure us from the least fear of your Demonstrations Yet unless you do this you undo your cause for if the Church could not erre she could need no reforming So that your Preaching of Reformation is vain your Faith vain and by consequence your selves Schismaticks and an Ace more SECT 4. Concerning the ground of Unity groundlesness of Schism and of Dr. Hammonds manner of arguing to clear himself of the later ALl that is material in the Doctors second Chapter is sum'd up in these two heads that the Church does ill in obliging men to subscribe against their present perswasion and That the Church which they left was erroneous and so obliged them to the subscription of Errors Upon these two notes as on a base-ground he runs division all along this Chapter repeating them so often in each Paragraph that I was forced to omit my intended method at present not making a Countet-sermon to each in order but bringing together his dispersed Doctrine into Heads and then confuting them not doubting but the Leaves and Branches which counterfeit some small flourish of devotion will quickly fade into Hypocrisie when the sapless roots are pluckt up from their rotten ground The former of them hath been discovered in the former Section to be worse then weak his manner of arguing from the second shall be laid open in this But because I perceive Mr. Hammond very much unacquainted with our grounds why our Church obliges her sons to rest in her belief and continue in her Communion thinking her doubtless very discourteous that will not leâ— her subjects in civility as the modest and moderate Church of England does hold and do what they list I will at present undeceive him somewhat in that point having a better occasion to do it more largely hereafter First The Doctor stumbles much and as Ignorance iâ— ever the Mother of admiration thinks Master Knot 's Inference very strange that the Church iâ— infallible otherwise men might forsake her Communion Whereas on the contrary I not onely think it strange to infer otherwise but as great an absuâ—dity as can be imagined for why may not meâ— forsake the Communion of the Church if they may forsake her Doctrine since it is impossible to preserve the former if he renounce the latter and why may they not forsake her Doctrine if she have no Power nor Authority â—o tie them to the belief of it and how can she have any Authority to binde them to the belief of it if she her self knows not certainly whether it be true oâ— no that is be not infallible Or what man living who hath so much wit as to raise or understand the difficulty can possibly so degenerate from Reason which is his nature as to submit it in believing things above his Reason and which concern his eternal Salvation upon such an Authority as may perhaps lie and so damn him for believing her since Without true Faith it is impossible to please God Hence follows by an inevitable consequence that since the Church pretends and hath ever pretended to have a Promise from Christ of a perpetual assistance from Error if Christ have made good that promise that is if she be infallible then her obliging her sons to rest in her Faith is most plainly evidenced to be charitable just and necessary because in that case it were both mens obligation and also their greatest good to believe so qualified a Mistress Whereas on the other side any other Congregation
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
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
abuse by imposing on them a false meaning borders upon Prophaneness The first Testimony is from the Twelfth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon where there is mention made of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities honored by Letters Patents from the Kings or Emperors with the name and dignities of Metropolisses where saith the Doctor the Council represses the ambition of the Bishops but not cassates the Rescripts nor withdraws the honor from the Metropolis so erected What cause the Doctor hath to brag of those newly-erected Metropolitans we shall presently shew He proceeds That Balsamon saith many Emperors had erected many Metropolitans and that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the power that was given them Thus far the Doctor whereas First the Council says onely that those Cities were honored with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name alone which the Doctor fluent in his expressions Englishes the Name and Dignity the later whereof they wanted that which should dignifie them in a degree of a Metropolitan being absolutely interdicted them by this very Canon in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let them enjoy onely the honor Secondly what this honor was your friend Balsamon tells you saying Some desired to know what that honor mean't 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and received answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that except onely that this Bishoprick was called a Metropolis in all other things it was subject to the former Metropolis Thirdly answerable to this are the very words in the Council calling the former Metropolis in contradistinction to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the true Metropolis signifying the other to be meerly titular Fourthly our question being whether the Emperor could give Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction not whether he could name places as he pleases and it being evident hence that either the Emperor never gave any Iurisdiction to the new Metropolis or if he did it was cassated by the Council nothing follows against us but totally against your self now that they had no new Jurisdiction given them is manifest out of the former plaâ—â— in Balsamon saying the Episcopacy was onely called a Metropolis to which he subjoyns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Bishop of it this new Metropolis shall be ordained by the old Metropolitan and shall be judged by him and in plain terms shall be subject to him Fifthly Balsamon tells us the Emperors did this according to the power that was given them which words the Doctor cites but leaves out a thing called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by the Interpreter Olim that is once formerly or by some precedent Council which Balsamon in that very place judges to have been the eight and thirtieth Canon in Trullo as shall be more clearly manifested hereafter The sum then of this first Testimony is That the Emperor conferred onely a name or title and that not without power given by the Church in her Councils both which are perfectly innocent to our cause and prejudicial to the Alleagers His first Observation hereupon is That this Council was within twenty years after that Grant of Valentinian and consequently saith the Doctor if Balsamon say right That at that time many Emperors had erected many there must needs be others before Valentinian Where the Observer is faln into a great mistake Balsamons words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Canon determining these things may some one say How then have divers Kings honored divers Episcopacies to be Metropolitans For now the Metropolis of Lacedemonia was a Bishoprick of the Metropolis of old PATRAE Madita of Heraclea Abyous of Cyricum and other Bishopricks also were honored It â—â—ems therefore to me from the eight and thirtieth Canon c. Where to omit that Balsamon in the first part of this Testimony intimates That Kings may be checkt in such things by Councils and not freed from that check but from some Concession of another Council the words are plain That Balsamon speaks of his own times in which he lived that is Six hundred years after the Council and that then such and such Metropolitans were made not of the time when the Council was held But the Observation is not much worth arguing or clearing His second Observation is That the seventeenth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon doth more expresly attribute this power to the Prince saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any City be built or restored by the Kings power let the Ecclesiastical order follow the Political Thus the Doctor walks up and down and yet at the same time disputes against motion He is to prove That it is the Kings proper right independent of the Church or her Canons to transfer the Ecclesiastical Dignities according to his political orders and he brings for proof a Canon of a Council or the Church constituting and ordaining it which shews that the matter depended upon the Ecclesiastical state And he calls that a more express attributing this power to the Prince which is indeed not attribuere but tribuere not an acknowledgment of it but a bestowing and conferring it This is most evident to the eye of any one who can read Greek out of the Scholion of your Friend Balsamon upon the eight and thirtieth Canon in Trullo which Scholion you quote here as if it were to your purpose and which very Canon you alleage here for your self in these words And the same power is acknowledged to belong to the Prince by the Council in Trullo Can. 38. Upon which Canon Balsamon saith thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But since the present Canon defines that those Cities which are erected or shall be erected by the Emperor be honored also by Churches conformably to the Emperors disposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We say saith Balsamon that also BY THE PRESENT CANON IT IS GIVEN TO THE EMPEROR to make new Bishopricks and raise others to the right of Metropolitans and to ordain concerning their election and administration as it shall seem good to him And a little after he recites an Edict of the Emperor to that purpose in which are found these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. My Imperial power not suffering THE PRIVILEDGE WHICH IS GRANTED IT BY THE DIVINE CANONS to be neglected ordains c. Was ever good man so mistaken as to cite such places which lookt into are as expresly against him as if they were coyn'd purposely in defiance of his doctrine Yet he forgetting the question runs on with a long Testimony That the Emperors could do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his own motion and without the ambitious sollicitation of them that sought it Whereas the question is not upon what terms it was lawful for the Emperor to give it but whether it were his own proper power annext to him as Head of the Church sollicited or not sollicited to give it at all and erect such Metropolitans at pleasure or rather whether it were
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
all that is in the Britannick World belongs to us and is derived to us Yet is this also false For nothing in History is more evident than that the British Churches admitted appellations to Rome at the Council of Sardica And as much as we have Records in our Histories of the Pope Eleutherius so much appeares the Popes Authority in that time And out of St. Prosper contra Collatorem in Chron. Wee have that the Pope Celestinus by his care and sending St. German Vice sua in his own stead freed the Britans from Pelagianism and converted the Scots by Palladius though Venerable Bede as far as I remember does not touch that circumstance But that which is mainly to the purpose is that since the Priviledge wee pretend was one that descends upon the Pope in quality of Successor to St. Peter how far it was executed may be unknown but that it was due none can bee ignorant And here our late Bishop begins to shuffle from the priviledge of St. Peter to the Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Pope which is another an historical a mutable power and so concernes not our present debate Two objections he makes seem to deserve an answer First That the Welsh or Britans sided with the Eastern Churches against the Roman in the observation of Easter To which I answer 't is true they observ'd not Easter right yet never so much as cited the Eastern Churches in abetment of their practise but onely the custome of their own Ancestors Neither was there any cause of siding wee not hearing it was ever pressed by the Church of Rome after Victor's time to any height The Council of Nice and the Emperour Constantine exhorted the Christian World to it but without any coercitive force And if the Britans resisted or rather neglected them I think wee ought not to say they sided against them but onely did not execute their desires St. Irenâ—us was of the French Church yet testifies this question was no matter of division so that it cannot bee guess'd by this what influence the Roman Church had or had not upon the British It seemes certain also that St. Lupus and Germanus neglected this Point that is thought it not necessary to be corrected however St. Austin seem'd more rigorous And though Palladius sent from Celestinus converted the Scots yet we find some of them in the same practise The second Objection is out of a piece of a worn Welsh Manuscript hoped by the Protestants to bee a Copy of some ancienter Original which though it has already been proved a manifest forgery counterfeited by all likelyhood in Q. Elizabeths time when the English Protestants sought to corrupt the Welsh by Catechisms and other Writings printed and not printed Yet if their great Antiquaries can shew that in St. Gregories time this name Papa or Pope taken by it self without other addition as Papa Urbis Romae c. was put as in later ages for the Bishop of Rome I shall confesse my selfe much surpriz'd If they cannot these very words sufficiently convince the Manuscript to bee a meer Imposture Another suspition against the legitimatnes of this paper naturally arises from this that Sr. Henry Spelman one so diligent in wiâ—ing off the dust from old writings found no other Antiquity in it worth the mention which shrewdly implies the Book was made for this alone And so this demonstrative proof of the Bishop is a conviction of the forgery of some counterfeit Knaue and the easiness of assent in Mr. Mosten and the Knight In his 6th Chapter he pretends three things 1. That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdraw their obedience from Rome 2ly That they had sufficient grounds for it and 3ly That they did it with due moderation I doubt not but the intelligent Reader understands by the first point that the Bishop meanes to shuffle away the true difficulty and whereas the Question is of the Priviledge given by Christ to Saint Peter and from him descended to the Popes his Successors spend his time about a Patriarchal Authority which wee also acknowledge to be of humane institution And here I must confesse that generally when no body opposes him his Lordship carries it clearly and gives his empty Reader full satisfaction Hee tells you out of Catholike Authors that Princes may resist the oppressions of Ecclesiasticks and themselves have priviledge to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction That Popes have been convented and deposed That Emperors have changed Patriarchs and that the Kings of England have as much power as Emperors And all this to handle the Question which is not in hand since our dispute is not what can be done in respect of the Popes Patriarchal Authority which the good Bishop himself professes the Pope has renounced these 600. years No doubt but th' other two points will follow the former in missing the Question For admitting the Popes Authority to bee derived from Christ what grounds can there bee for renouncing it or what moderation is the rejjecting it capable of Nay even if it were of humane institution many things there are which cannot bee rejected unless it appear the abuses are not otherwise remediable Suppose then the Christian World had chosen themselves one Head for the preservation oâ—â—o precious a Jewel as Unity in Religion how great absurdities must that Head commit what wrongâ— must it doe to cause it selfe to bee justly deposed and not onely the Person deposed but the very Government abolish't Suppose again that this alteration should â—ee made by some one party of the Christian Common-â—ealth which must separate it selfe from the assistance and communication of the â—â—st of Christianity ought not far weightier causes bee expected or greater abuses committed Suppose thirdly that by setting aside this Supreme Head eternal dissentions will inevibly follow in the whole Church of Christ to the utter ruine of faith and good life which our Saviour thought worth the comming down from Heaven to plant among us and then tell mee whether the refusal to comply with the humours of a lustful Prince be ground enough â—o renounce so necessary an Authority Let the Bishop bee now asked whether Kings deserve to bee deposed and Monarchy it selfâ— rejected for such abuses as hee gathers against the Pope or whether there may not easily bee made a collection of as many an I great misgovernments against the Court of England or any other Country Let him remember whether like abuses were not alledged against his own Parliamentary-Prelacy when it was put down Will hee justifie that if the mâ—â—demeanours pretended against them had been true the extirpation of Prelacy had been lawfull Surely hee would find out many remedies which hee would think necessary to bee first tryed and Sâ—â—ggin should as soon haue chosen a tree to bee hanged on as â—hee have ended the number of expedients to be â—â—yed before hee would give his assent to the extirpation of Episcopacy It is then of little concern to
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