not from the Tribunal of the Jews much less their Synagogue representing their Church as the Doctor would perswade us but from the Tribunal of Portius Festus a Roman Governor under Caesar to Caesar himself I will onely put down the words as I finde them in their own Translation and so leave the Doctor to the Readers Judgement either to be accused for willfully abusing or ignorantly mistaking them But Festus willing to do the Iews a pleasure answered Paul and said wilt thou go up to Ierusalem and there be judged of these things before me Then said Paul I stand at Caesars judgement-seat where I ought to be judged c. Act. 25. 9 10 c. And now is not this Doctor think you the fittest man among all the sons of the Church of England to have a Pension for writing Annotations in folio on the Bible His last proof is that Iustinians third Book is made up of Constitutions de Episcopis Clericis Laicis Bishops Priests Laymen First we answer and the same may be said of the Theodosian Code that all the Laws found there must not necessarily be Iustinians since the Keepers of the Laws use not onely to put in their Law-books those Constitutions themselves made but also those they are to see observed among which are the Canons and Laws of the Church made before by Councils and other Ecclesiastical Powers Secondly We grant Iustinian may make Constitutions of his own concerning Bishops and Clergymen in what relates to temporal affairs or as they are parts of the civil Commonwealth And lastly If he shall be found to have made any Laws concerning them and without the Authority of the Church entrenching upon Ecclesiastical businesses let the Doctor prove he had power to make such and he will in so doing clear him in that part from that note of Tyranny which is objected against him What you say concerning the Canons of Councils that they have been mostly set out by the Emperors It is very certain you might if you had pleased instead of your Mostly have put Always the causing them to be promulgated belonging to the Office of the supreme secular Powers whose obligation it is to see that the Churches decrees be received and put in execution What you clap in within a Parenthesis as your custom is to intermingle truth with falshood that Canons of Councils received their Authority by the Emperor In the sence you take it is a great error For never was it heard that an Emperor claimed a negative voice in making a Canon of a Council valid which concerned matters purely Spiritual nay nor disaccepted them decreed unanimously by the Fathers but all the world lookt upon him as an unjust and tyrannical incroacher They receive indeed Authority from the Emperor in this sense that his subscription and command to proclaim them makes them have a more powerful reception and secures them from the obstacles of turbulent and rebellious spirits But this will not content you your aym is that they should not have the Authority or validity of a Canon without the last-life-giving-hand of the Emperors vote which is onely a strain of your own liberality to him or rather of your envy towards the Church without any ground of his rightful claim to any such Jurisdiction over Councils SECT 7. Other empty Proofs of this pretended Right confuted THese rubs being removed it will be our next sport to address an answer to his nineteenth Section it self where omitting his ten Parenthesisses which contain nothing but either sayings of his own or Greek out of Strabo's Geography That the Romans kept their assizes at divers places or Testimonies from the Council of Chalcedon already answered omitting these I say I will briefly resume the whole sence of the Paragraph as well as I can gather it out of the some-thing-more Lucid intervals of his mad Parenthesisses And this I take to be the sum of it That Kings should according to emergent conveniences change their Seats of Iudicature and that the same reasons may require a removal of Ecclesiastical Seats wherefore there being nothing to the contrary constituted either by Christ or his Apostles it follows That Kings may when they please erect and consequently remove Primacies and Metropolitans I answer That Secular Courts may be removed upon good occasions is so evident to every Fool that it needs neither Greek nor Strabo to prove it That Ecclesiastical Seats for greater conveniences of the Church be also subject to removal is likewise evident and constituted by the Council of Chalcedon Can. 17. But his inference That it belongs to the right of Kings to erect and transfer them is weaker then water nor has the Doctor infused into it the least grain of Reason to strengthen it Yet first to prove it he says Nothing is found either by Christ or his Apostles ordered to the contrary Which is a most pitiful Negative proof as indeed the greatest part of his Book iâ— and supposes to make it good That neither Christ nor his Apostles said did or ordered any thing but what is exprest in Scripture which is both expresly contrary to Scripture it self and to common reason also Besides this wise proof is both most unjust towards us and silly in him to expect unjust towards us ingaging us to prove out of Scripture That Kings cannot erect Primacies and Patriarchates whereas there is no such word there as either Primate or Patriarchate which he would have us shew thence not subject to Kings Nor is it less silly in him to expect That the Scripture should make mention of the erection or not erection of Primacies and Patriarchates by Secular Powers since the Secular Powers when the Scripture was written being most bloody Tyrants and Persecutors of the Church were more likely to hang up all Primates and Patriarchs then either erect or remove their Seats to a more convenient place Yet if you would see something to the contrary why Kings should not use Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction I can produce you the sence of the Catholick Church the best Testimony that can be alleaged for the meaning of Gods Spirit but because this weighs little with you I shew you next the Testimony of common sence and reason which tells you Faber fabrilia tractet and that those whose education institute of life particular designment to and total dependence on any course of life makes them more strongly addict all their thoughts to perfect themselves knowingly and magisterially in that their proper profession are fitter by far for such an employment then those whose diversly-distracted studies render them half-knowing or half-careful in such performances How much then is it more convenient that Ecclesiastical persons should manage the affairs of the Church then Secular Princes whom partly their necessary Temporal occasions partly voluntary Recreations Court attendances and entertainments so quite take up that they can have but saint and weak reflections either of knowledge or care in comparison of the others upon
ever imagin'd it a matter of Controversie needing to be manifested Whether or no King Henry the Eighth denied the Popes Supremacy The second is yet more ridiculous then the former since not even the most impudent Heretick in the World ever had the face to deny but that if the Popes Universal Authority was constituted by Christ the consequence was inevitable That it was both Schism and Heresie to reject and condem it as he confesses they did Yet is this the second thing saith he which we must manifest ere the Objection will be of any force But to make the jest compleat after telling us That we are to manifest them he out of his courtesie and to expedite the matter is pleased to grant them not requiring the pretenders farther to prove them As if he could have resisted them but had done us a great favor in saving us from a most disgraceful foil we should have sustained in maintaining That a fact was done which himself and all the world acknowledges and in being puzzled with proving that what Christ bid us do was to be done and the Authority instituted by God himself to be obeyed To what purpose was it to bring such unnecessary and frivolous distinctions and afterwards wave them But the Doctor as I have shown before and shall demonstrate more largely hereafter hath a most special gift of his own in dividing his Text and he must upon all or rather no occasion show it Which trick of his though it counterfeit an order and breed an apprehension of a methodical exactness in discourse to ordinary Readers yet when it shall be discovered to tend to no solidity being like the Philosophers dividing of Spatium imaginarium all men will see plainly it is but a meer knack to be-wonder Children and Ignorants SECT 7. Of Doctor Hammonds first Evidence against St. Peters Universal Pastorship BUt now the Question is stated this Chapter is to prove no Donation of any Primacy to St. Peter by Christ the next That no such Authority is devolv'd upon the Pope his Successor in the See of Rome And now the long-expected time of the Doctors Evidences is come I told you he had a horrible design in Lavander against the Pope now truth is come to light This this is the fatal time that the Horns of the Beast in the Apocalypse must be broken and the Walls of that Whorish-Babylon thrown down by the inevitable and unresistable Evidences of Dr. Hammond But to be serious the Doctor and I joyntly request the ingenuous Reader to bestow more attentive and deliberate diligence in examining and weighing well this part of the Controversie then what hath gone before The important weight of the truth in question now hot in pursuit and the very sound of Evidence now mainly pretended do both invite to a more particular attention The Doctor especially granting that the Question must be managed with Evidences and so concluded either on the one side or the other If the Doctors proofs conclude and manifest themselves to be indeed what they are pretended that is Evidences then I will grant the truth on his side and the controversie at an end But if all the Evidence they bring be onely that they are most evidently repugnant and most injurious to Gods Word to all Ancient Histories and to themselves that they are open Forgeries and most absurd Deductions shamefully abusing the Readers judgment and ev'n his very eyes then I hope the Reader will pardon me if I seem to bear less respect to him in telling him plainly of his faulâ—s who manifests himself to have quite cast off all respect to Truth Gods Word Antiquity his Readers and even to his own Conscience But the Doctor begins to argue have at Saint Peter then in this Chapter have at the Pope in the next His first Evidence then as he calls it is from Scripture That St. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision or Iews exclusively to the Uncircumcision or Gentiles Whence he insers that St. Peters authority being restrained to the Jews onely could not be Universal to the whole Church So that all his first Evidence is to evince the No-authority that Apostle had over the Gentiles or the Exclusiveness of any Apostleship in respect of them But first Mr. Hammond tells us what he means by an Apostle to wit A Commissioner of Christ endued with authority by him and this Commission given to him as to all the other Apostles indefinitely and unlimitedly not restrained by Christs words to any particular Province but equally extending to the whole World Where since he would go about to define an Apostle he might have done well to show in what he is distinguished from a Disciple However all he there says is true onely we adde That neither by any subsequent act of theirs as the Doctor imagines was this illimited Commission given to each by Christ restrained to particular sorts of men or several large Diocesses or Provinces so as to make them lose thereby their jurisdiction over other persons or places However they might agree for the better propagating the Gospel to disperse themselves into several Nations or by the provident cooperation of Gods Spirit have a more especial gift in converting some sorts of people then others and so applying more their industry where they experienced more fruit of their Preaching got thence by their particular addiction to that sort of people or that Nation the appellation of their Apostle or Doctor No Exclusiveness therefore of their ample Authority and Apostolical Jurisdiction from any Sect or Nation no hedging or fencing in the unbounded vastness of their universally-extended Mission and Commission within the Verge of any particular Province or People Yet Mr. Hammond will needs have all their Authorities limited for fear St. Peters should prove unlimited and therefore layes for his ground to conclude St. Peter Apostle of the Jews onely That they distributed their Universal great Province into several lesser ones This he evidences for you must conceive that all these Chapters are perfectly connected discourses that is manifest and noon-day Evidences out of two places in the Sacred Scripture in explicating which also his chief talent-lies These therefore we must endeavor to clear as far as our abilities will give us leave For the Reader can imagine no less but that these two places being the foundation of the Doctors future discourse must be most unconfutable Evidences and consequently must needs cost as much toil and labor in the answering The first place he alledges to prove That the Apostles had especial and peculiar Provinces exclusively to one another is that of Acts 1. 25. where the Apostles pray God to shew Whether of the two proposed justus and Matthias he had chosen that he might receive the lot of that Ministry and Apostleship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence â—udas strayed to go to his own place where he will needs have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to
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
greater Authority in Iames did St. Peter vote the contrary and St. Iames his sentence oversway or would not the advice of commanding them to abstain from the things there prohibited have been voted and accepted of by the Council though the proposition had been made by one of inferior dignity unless perhaps the Doctor imagines the Apostles and Elders of the Church assembled in the Council were such weak passionate and partial men that they did not decree things because they were reason and fitting but because St. Iames spoke them whose greater Authority the Doctor seating him in the principal place they were you must think somewhat afraid of But any thing serves this Doctor for an Evidence His all swallowing faith makes that seem a demonstration against the Pope which to us poor men because of our unbelief bears not so much as the least show of a probability And he imagines from the particle Then in the two and twentieth verse which he misunderstands that he who gives his sentence after another hath an Authority above him Though in reason one should rather think after such debate as had been concerning this matter Verse 7. it argued some greater Authority in him who should first break the Ice and interpose his judgment in such a solemnly-pronounced Oration as did St. Peter But the Doctor will have the contrary a demonstration and who can help it The up shot then of this Paragraph is that the Doctors concluding against St. Peters Primacy from St. Iames his being first named is a prejudice to his own cause from his principal place in the Council the Doctors own fiction from his giving the sentence and on it grounding the Rescript two fine little diminutive frauds and abuses of Scripture from his instalment a frivolous peece of affected ignorance and thus you have a perfect account cast up of the Doctors sixth Paragraph in his fourth Chapter of Evidences Ere I remove to another I desire the Reader whose little curiosity has not invited him to look into languages not to be amazed at the large Greek citations which here swell the Margin I can assure him they are nothing at all to the Question but of indifferent matters acknowledged by our selves And I will be bound both at this time and hereafter for the Doctors innocency in this point That he is never tedious nor over large either in Citations or Reasons which tend directly to the thing in controversie as hath heretofore in part been declared and shall more particularly be manifested hereafter In the seventh Paragraph to omit what hath been answered already he tells us That St. Paul had no Commission received from nor dependence on St. Peter citing for it Gal. 1. 12 17. Which words may import a double sence either that the manner of conferring upon him the power of an Apostle was not by means or dependence on St. Peter and so far indeed the Scripture is clear and we acknowledge it or else that this power given him was not dependent on or subject to St. Peter as the cheif of the Apostles which is the question here treated denied by us nor contradicted at all by the place alleaged But he proceeds in his fundamental absurdity that those two great Apostles wherever they came the one constantly applied himself to the Iews the other to the Gentiles Where if by constantly he means most commonly or even always yet so as they retained jurisdiction over the others Province then to omit that it hath been shown contrary to Scripture it makes nothing against us But if it signifie exclusively or so That neither had any Authority over the others Province in which sence onely it can limit St. Peters Universal Authority which as he expresses Section six is his aim then I refer the Reader to my eighth Section of this Chapter where he shall see the contrary manifested to the eye by nine or ten most express places of Scripture yet the Doctor goes on to evidence it by Testimonies which obliges us to address our selves with new vigor to bear the shock of so terrible an encounter His first testimony is his own knowledge Thus we know saith he it was at Antioch where St. Peter converted the Iews and St. Paul the Gentiles But puts down no testimony at all to confirm the weaker ones of his own We know which yet had been requisite that we might have known it too But he tells us that certainly St. Paul was no ways subordinate to St. Peter as appears by his behavior towards him avowed Gal. 2. 11. that is From his withstanding him to the face Yet wiser men then Mr. Hammond to wit St. Cyprian and St. Austin thought otherwise who interpreted St. Peters bearing it so patiently not as an argument of his less or equal Authority but of his greater humility that being higher in dignity he should suffer so mildly the reprehensions of an inferior Quem saith St. Cyprian quamvis Primum Dominus elegerit super eum aedificaverit Ecclesiam suam tamen cum secum Paulus disceptavit non vindicavit â—ibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se Primatum tenere obtemperari à novellis posteris sibi potiùs oportere nec despexit Paulum quod Ecclesiae priùs persecutor fuisset sed consilium veritatis admisit c. Whom though our Lord chose to be the first of the Apostles and upon him built his Church yet when Paul contended with him be did not challenge and assume to himself any thing in an insolent and proud manner as to say That he had the Primacy and so should rather be obeyed by newer and later Apostles neither did he despise Paul because he had formerly been a persecutor of the Church but admitted the councel of Truth Thus that ancient learned and holy Father St. Cyprian yet Mr. Hammond hath certainty of the contrary SECT 10. The Examination of ten dumb Testimonies which Dr. Hammond brings to plead for him THe next Testimony begins thus ACCORDINGLY that is to the Doctors own WE KNOW in Ignatius his Epistle to the Magnesians We read that the Church of Antioch was founded by St. Peter and St. Paul After which follows another of the same Author in his Epistle to the Antiochians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You have been the Disciples of Peter and Paul What then These Testimonies are stark dumb in what concerns the Doctors purpose for the founding the Antiochians Church and teaching them might have been done by the promiscuous endeavors of those Apostles Here is not the least news of distinction much less exclusion of Authority and Jurisdiction True indeed the Testimonies are defective and to blame but the Doctor knows how to mend them by his Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You have been the Disciples of Peter and Paul ID EST saith the Doctor converted and ruled by them the Iewish part by one and the Gentile by the other Was ever such an ID EST
pleasure Cath. Do not answer Dr. de Cepis when we ask de alliis you might have sav'd your labour in a great part of your Book wher you slipt the question and digrest to Patriarchs Our question is not of Patriarchal but of Papal Authority and so we ask you whether it be not evident that this Papal Authority was in actual possession of this Islands subjection at the time of the breach and so had been for 900 yeers ever since Pope Gregory sent Austin the Monk to convert the Saxons forefathers to us English Dr. I know no Authority he ever had in England more than Patriarchal Cath. Do not you know that the Popes Authority then acknowledged in England was held above Patriarchs and therefore more then Patriarchal and that you grant you cast out of this Island not a Patriarchal Authority only but a Papal one Dr. True but the pretended Authority was usurpt and not according to Gods Ordinance Cath. How know you it was usurpt wil bare probabilities be a sufficient ground to renounce an authority so long establisht in possession held sacred ever before and to which your selves were till then subject wil I say a meer probability that perhaps that authority was not sacred but unjust serve your turn to excuse you from disobedience in renouncing it Dr. No Sir we have evidence it was unjust and that the Church we were brought up in erred in that point of beliefe Cath. This evidence of yours must either be a Demonstration from natural reason or an undeniable testimony either divine or humane Dr. I doe not pretend natural demonstration but we have evident testimonies against it Cath. Can you manifest that those testimonies and the like may be said of Arguments from natural reason have not been answer'd twenty times over by our Writers and in case they have can you shew that you have replied upon all their answers so as they bear now no probable shew of satisfaction if not you cannot call your testimony an evidence Next are you certain that our Authors cannot produce an hundred testimonies for one of yours or at least an equal number and those seeming as expresly or more to make for us as yours doe for you If so your testimonies are at least counterpois'd with the weight of ours and so cannot make an evidence but hang only in the hovering scales of a doubtfull probability Thirdly are your testimonies such that they are of greater weight than the judgment of all the Catholick world holding the Pope Head of the Church as our greatest adversaries the Puritans say for twelve hundred years or as you say two hundred years later are they of that weight to over-ballance so far-extended so numerous and so learned an Authority If not they are so far from evidences that they fall short of being probabilities Dr. I see you will hold to no authority but that of your own Church and this is a method of security beyond all Amulets Cath. And good reason too unless you can shew us a greater Dr. A greater we have id est Gods word out of which we can evidence that your Church we were brought up in was fallible yea en'd in many points and particularly in this of the Popes Supremacy Cath. You cannot with any face pretend an evidence from Scripture against us unless you can evidence a greater faculty and meanes to interpret those Oracles in you or your first Reformers than there was in the Church you left And since these meanes are either supernatural light or natural parts and knowledge you must evidence an advantage above us in one of these And first as for natural knowledg you cannot be ignorant that at the time of the breach the Catholick Church had an hundred Doctors for one of yours what an unproportion'd advantage then must that number swel to if all the learned men in the many foregoing ages without any one of your Sect then unheard of to counterballance them be heaped into one Bulk and those too such as your selves must acknowledge far more eminent in Schoole Divinity study in Scripture and all kinde of Learning both divine and humane than any of King Henry's fellow-reformers were ever deemed or if you stiffely deny an advantage we as stiffely pretend it and so leave it a drawn maâ—ch for what concernes their parts yet you your selves must giant you are incomparably overpower'd in the numerous multitude of them In natural meanes then of interpreting Scripture our extraordinary advantage over your Reformers makes it an impudence in them to pretend their advantage evident It must be then an evidence of a supernatural faculty in interpreting Gods word better than their Superiours and Pastors which can make them pretend to a clear knowledge thence that our Church hath err'd But since no supernatural thing that is latent and invisible in it selfe can be evidenced or acknowledged to be such without some exteriour token exceeding the power and skill of nature as are miracles gift of tongues c. none of which you can lay claim to it followes that neither your reforming forefathers nor your selves can produce evidence of any better meanes either supernatural or natural to interpret Scriptures than the Church you left therefore no evidence that they more truely interpreted it than that Church therfore none thence that the Church err'd therefore none from divine Authority and no humane authority being found comparable to that of the Church it followes they can have as little evidence from thence Evident therefore it is that you neither had nor now have any evidence at all but onely a probable perhaps that the Church erred which being too sleight a Reason to shake off subjection to an authority so long establish't and held as a point of Faith by the present and past world consequently they who upon no better grounds should shake it off are guilty of a most rash and grievous disobedience and Schism But your selfe here confesse Sect. 5. that you cast this Authority out of this Island without power to evidence that that Church erred as hath been shewn What excuse then can you alledge to clear your Father-Reformers and your selfe from a most irrational and selfe-condemning Schism nay more heresie Dr. At least they had such proofes as they thought evident and bred in them a present perswasion that the Church hath erred which they could not in conscience goe against and therefore it was hard dealing to punish them with Excommunication for proceeding conscientiously according to their present perswasion Cath. I doubt not but they might have a present perswasion that the Church hath err'd but I doubt much whether this present perswasion be sufficient to excuse them either from sin or punishment For this perswasion of theirs is either rational or irrational if rational a sufficient reason may be render'd why they deny'd so qualified a Government and reason it selfe telling us that no reason less than evidence is sufficient it would follow that evidence may
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