Schism dispach't or A rejoynder to the replies of Dr. Hammond and the Ld of Derry.

Sect. 3.

How unfortunate and weak Dr. H. is, in quoting S. Hiero∣me against the Disarmer for writing plainly His crafty and discourteous Calumny.

AFter the testimonies from Scripture blindly levell'd at S. W. followes in the sixt Paragraph, that it was a deviation from art to treat him thus unkindly (to which I have answered above) and that S. Hierome notes it as a great errour in Helvidius, that he took railing for elo∣quence. Wherefore since Mr. H. chuses S. Hierome for his Patron against S. W. in this point of the manner of writing controversy, let us stand to his ward and exam∣ple: and see how he treated Vigilantius, Dr. Hs. and the Protestants Forefather in the point of denying venera∣tion to Holy Reliques; and wether he stood upon cour∣tesy, when he made account he had a just occasion to shew his zeal. In his Epistle to Riparius, the first he writ against Vigilantius, he hath these words: O praeciden∣dam ling••am, &c. O tongue worthy to be cut out by Phy∣sicians, or rather, oh frantick head to be cured by them, &c. Ego vidi hoc aliquando portentum; I once saw this prodigious monster. Tacita me forsan cogitatione repre hendas, &c. Perhaps thou mayest reprehend me in thy si∣lent thought, why I inveigh against one absent: I confes∣to thee my passion, I cannot hear so great sacriledge with patience. For I have read of the lance of Phinees, the austere rigour of Elias, the zeal of Simon of Cananee, the severity of Peter killing Ananias and Sapphira, the con∣stancy of Paul, who condemned to eternall blindnesse Ely∣mas the Sorcerer, resisting the wayes of our Lord. Piety in Gods behalf is not cruelty. Nor by consequence is zeale in behalf of Faith railing; if that Faith be held to have

certain grounds; which onely can justify zeal, and make it discreet. But to proceed.

His second Epistle against Vigilantius begins thus.

Multa in orbe monstra &c Many monsters have been begotten in the world: we read in Esaias of Centaurs and Sirens, Screech-owls and Onocrotals: Iob describes Leviathan and Behemoth in mysticall language: the fables of the Poets tell of Cerberus, and the Stym∣phals, and the Erymanthian Boar, of the Nemean Li∣on, of Chimera, ad many-headed Hydra: Virgil de∣scribes Cacus; Spain hath brought to light three-shap't Geryon; France onely had no Monsters. Suddenly there arose Vigilantius, or more truly Dormitantius, who with an unclean spirit fights against the spirit of Christ, and denies that the sepulchres of the martyrs are to be venerated. Insanum caput! mad or frantick fel∣low! Sanctas reliquias Andreae, Lucae & Timothei, apud quas Daemones rugiunt, & inhabitatores Vigilantij il∣lorum se sentire praesentiam confitentur, The holy re∣liques of Andrew, Luke and Timothy, at which the Devils roare, and the possessours of Vigilantius con∣fesse that they feel their presence. Tu vigilans dor∣mis, & dormiens scribis: Thou sleepest waking, and writest sleeping. De barathro pectoris tui coenosam spur∣citiam evomens; vomiting dirty filth from the hell of thy breast. Lingua viperea! Viperine tongue! Spiri∣tus isle immundus, qui haec te cogit scr••bere, saepe hoc vilissimo tortus est pulvere, immo hodieque torquetur; & qui iu te plagas dissimula••, in aliis confitetur: That unclean spirit which compells thee to write these things, has oftentimes been tortured with this contemptible dust (meaning the Holy Reliques, which Vigilantius styled thus) yea and is now adayes still tortur'd; and he who in thee dissembles his wounds, confesses them in others.

But let us come to the Treatise our Adversary cites, and see how roughly S. Hierome handles Helvidius; whom Dr. H. would have him accuse in the same trea∣tise of the self-same fault.

Sed••ne te quasi lubricus an∣guis evolvas, testimoniorum stringendus es vinculis, ne quer••lus sibiles; but lest, like a stippery snake, thou disentangle thy self, thou must be bound with the cords of testimonies, that thou mayest not querulously hiss: Imperitissime hominum! siliest of men! Nobilis es factus in scelere, Thou art ennobled & made famous by thy wickednesse. Quamvis sis hebes, dicere non a••∣debis; although thou beest dull or blockish, yet thou darest not affirm it. Risimus in te proverbinm, Camelum vidimus saltantem: We have laught at the old proverb in thee, We have seen a dancing Camel▪ &c.

Where we see.

First, that if S. Hierome's verdict exprest in his own manifold example be allowable, whom Dr. H hath chosen for Vmpire in his matter, tis very lawfull and fitting to give the Adversaries of Faith their full desert in controversies concerning Faith, and not to spare them as long as the truth of their faultinesse can justify the rigo∣rous expressions. Neither let Dr. H. objet that I beg the question, in supposing him an Adversary of the true faith: for to put the matter indifferently, and so as may please even the Protestants them selves, either Dr. H's cause is false, and then 'tis laudable to use zeal against him, who perniciously endeavours to mantain a falsehood; or else it is true, & then he deserves as great a reprehension who a∣buses his cause by going about to defend it by such wilfull falsifications, and so many frauds and weaknesses, as he hath been discovered. Whence it appears that the indiffe∣rent Reader is not to consider at all, whether the expres∣sions sound harshly or no, but whether they be true or no; for if they be, then that person will be found in rea∣son

to deserve reprehension, be the cause he defends true or false, if he defend it either senselesly or insincere∣ly.

Secondly, these harsh expressions of S. Hieromes being due to Dr. H's forefather Vigilantius, for denying vene∣ration to holy Reliques, are due likewise upon that onely score to Dr. H. and the Protestant writers, who deny the same Point: what then may we imagine the Protestants deserve for filling up the measure of their forefathers sinnes, by denying the onely certain Rule of Faith, Vni∣versall Tradition, the former governmēt of God's Church, almost all the Sacraments, and many other most impor∣tant points besides, and of much greater concernment than is this of venerating holy Reliques?

Thirdly, the Reader shall find no where in Schism Disarm'd such harsh language given to Dr. H. or which (if taken in it's own nature (sounds so contumeliously as this of S. Hieromes against Vigilantius is; frantick fellow, monster, prodigious monster▪ possest with the Devill, possest with an unclean Spirit, snake, famous for wicked∣nesse, blockhead, &c. My harshest words in comparison of these are moderate and ciuil▪ mine are smiling Ironies, his are stern and bitter Sarcasmes, and if I whipt Dr. H. gently with rods, S. Hierome wihpt his forefather Vigi∣lantius with Scorpions. Whence followes that I am to be thank't by Dr. H. for my moderation, not excommu∣nicated for my excesse in reprehending him, since all those more severe expressions far out-vying mine, were his due as he is in the same fault with Vigilantius, besides what accrues to him out of later titles; and this by the judge∣ment of S. Hierome, the very Authour he quotes for him∣self in this point.

Fourthly, what a miserable weaknesse is it to quote this Father against me for using harsh language, who himself uses far harsher? which evidences that if this Fa∣thers

authority and example be of weight in this point, as Dr. H. grants by bringing him against me for that pur∣pose, then the roughnesse of the language is not railing or reprehensible, if taken alone or abstracted from the cause (since Dr. H. will not say that this holy Father thought that manner of language railing or reprehensible in him∣self) which showes that Dr. H's first Chapter, fight∣ing against the words as abstracted from the cause, as much accuses S. Hierome as me; nay much more, as his words exprest more fully his justly-caused zeal, than my more moderate pen did.

Fifthly, abstracting from the cause, and impugning the manner of expression onely, as Dr. H. does, who sees not that the Heretick Vigilantius might with the same reason as he, have entitled the first Chapter of his Reply to S. Hierome in the like manner as he did, to wit thus, Of Hieroms style and contumelies:

The Scriptures, sen∣tence on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the Character belonging thereto?

Then in the Chapter it self have call'd S Hierome's plain discovery of his faults, scoffes and contumelies, have told him that he had just title to the scorners chair, that his writing against him, was like

Goliahs cursing of Da∣vid, Rabshakels reproaches against Israel, that the A∣postle had long ago pronounced sentence against him, that none should eat with him, that he was in reality no Christian, a detestable person, faln under the censures of the Church, ipso jure excommunicate, in a speciall sort one of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unrighteous, that he shall not inherit the Kingdome of Heaven, that this was the very Dia∣lect which the Iewes used toward the true Prophets of God, that it is against the practice of S. Michael and a∣gainst the spirit of weeknesse, peace and long-suffer∣ing, &c.

As if every heretick, nay every malefactour in the world, could not say the same to their just reprehen∣ders and punishers: or as if peace and long-suffering were

to be used at all times, even when we see we suffer divine Truth to be injurd, and souls run headlong and blind to Hell after such blind guides. Every one, Mr. H. can preach patience, peace and long suffering, quote scri∣pture, intermix Greek words pedantically; but none can speak sense but they who have truth on their side. It must be judged then by the strength of the reasons you bring to clear your selves from schism, whether you deserved those reprehensions from your Adversary or no, and not from what your quodlibeticall vein can preach to us. And till you bring evident ones, I shall ever think that S. Hierome (your own Authours here) preacht as good doctrine as you in a place lately cited, when he told us with many instances that non est crudelitas pro Deo pie∣tas.

Sixthly, what is it to me that S. Hierome noted it as an errour in Helvidius, that he took railing for eloquence, unlesse he can prove that I took it so too? He knowes I pretend that justice, truth, and the necessity of my cause, warranted, nay obliged me to be so plain with him. I pretend no Eloquence in an ordinary controversy; nei∣ther did I think that confuting Dr. H. would be such a rare businesse, that it would be worth the pains of a rhe∣toricall filing.

Lastly, to shew more and more the weaknesse of this Dr. S. Hieromes words of Helvidius are these; loqua∣citatem facundiam existimat, he thinks babling to be elo∣quence. But the good Dr. whom any semblance of a te∣stimony contents, construes loquacitas (wordishness) to be railing; as if empty pulpit-beatres, who talk two hours without a word of solidnesse, were therefore all railers. I doubt that ere we come to an end of this Trea∣tise, Loquacity, that is, voluntary talking wordishly with∣out a syllable of sense, will be so perfectly shown to be D. H's proper and peculiar fault, that his own words

will evince it without the help of Saint Hierome.

And thus hath Dr. H. sped in quoting this holy, lear∣ned, and truly zealous Father for the Patron of his affe∣cted courte••y and civility; and a pattren for S. W. to fol∣low in writing Controversies about Faith.

I once hoped Mr. H. and I should have parted very good Friends from this first Section, notwithstanding the contumelies which, contrary to his own grounds, he hath heaped upon me in it. But he hath so purposely counterfeited a mistake, that he might by that means fix a ••ly c••••umny upon a worthy person, that Charity and pitty must both be summon'd up to pardon him in it▪ I had upon occasion of the Evidence of our Churches In∣fallibility in my Schim Disaerm'd pag. 20. told him, he might to his amazement see it 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 Thomas White. What does Mr. H? he tells us that S. W. sayes, his arrowes are beyond all possible confute; meaning that S. W. the Au∣thour of Schism Disarm'd, was the same with the Au∣thour of the Apology for Tradition) though I am certain∣ly inform'd that he knows S. W. to be another person) and reports again afterwards the same phrase to the same purpose. Now by this one project he gaines two ad∣vantages: First he honours himself with making the world believe he had so worthy an Adversary as the Au∣thour of that Apology: next, when he has done this, he dishonours his pretended Adversary, as the vainest per∣son in the world, by intimating that himself in Schism Disa••m'd gave himself such an high character. Whereas first, I assure Dr. H. it is in vain to hope for such an ho∣nour as is an Answer from that miracle of with and lear∣ning▪ it is worthy him to write grounds, not to stand replying upon meer words; to answer such weak skir∣mishers

is a task more proper for one of the meanest and youngest of his scholars, a very slender participation of his solid knowledge renders one able to encounter with the Apuleian bladders of aiery testimonies, the victory over which can onely entitle one to Domitian's triumph, and need more the Flyflap of a Dictionary, or turning o∣ver leaves to combat them, then the acuter and stronger sword of reason. As for the second, which is the sly ca∣lumny of that worthy person's feigned self-praise, built onely on Mr. H's wilfull mistake, I fear the intimater of it will lose much credit by so ignoble a detraction of such a person; since his profoundest humility, of equall depth with his knowledge, secures him as much from desiring praise, as his known worth from needing it; every one freely yielding him those excellent commendations, which his Detractours will needs have him, for want of good neighbours, give himself.

He tells us in the close, that Divines are allowed to have skill in Symptomes. What Symptomes are these, and of what? that the profusest la••ghter is the worst in∣dication of the affections of the spleen, quoting Irenaeus & Galen. I ask, suppose Irenaeus had also said that a grave∣ly-affected melancholy, extraordinarily representing san∣ctity and piety, and a professing an earnest desire to speak the full truth of God (Answer p. 18.) and yet in the mean time falsifying most palpably, purposely, and in∣excusably, is the worst indication of a pharisaicall hy∣pocrisie; were not this more competible to Mr. H. then the other is to me? I hope then he is answered, at least in as good a manner as such toyes deserve. And ere I come to finish this Treatise, I flatter my self, that even Dr. H's own Friend•• will acknowledge that such is his carriage, and manner of writing, unlesse a strong prepos∣session of partiality have blinded them, and shut the eyes both of their mind and body; since to make good this

my charge against him, little more then the common use of the latter is exacted of the Reader.