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

Sect. 6.

The Continuation of the same Grounds.

THe ninth Ground is, that, The Catholick Church and her Champions ought in reason to stand upon Pos∣session. This is already manifested from the fifth Ground, since Possession is of it's self a title, till sufficient motives be produced to evidence it an usurpation; as hath there been shown. By this appears the injustice of the Prote∣stants, who would have it thought reasonable, that we should seem to quit our best tenour, Possession attested by Tradition, and fall upon the troublesome and labo∣rious method of citing Authours, in which they will ac∣cept of none but whom they list; and, after all our pains and quotations, directly refuse to stand to their judgment: as may be seen in the Protestant's Apology; in which by the Protestant's own confessions the Fathers held tho∣se opinions, which they object to us for errours.

The tenth Ground is, that, In our Controversies about Religion, reason requires that we should sustain the part of the Defendant, they of the Opponent. This is already sufficiently proved, since we ought to stand upon the title

of Possession, as a Ground beyond all arguments, untill it be convinced to be malae fidei, which is impossible; they, to produce sufficient arguments that it was unjust: that is, they must oppose or object, we defend; they ought to argue, we to answer. Hence appeares how meanly skill'd Dr. H. is in the art of disputing, com∣plaining many times in his last Book that I bring no Te∣stimonies out of Antiquity, and that I do not prove things in my Schism Disarm'd; whereas that Treatise being de∣sign'd for an Answer to his Book of Schism, had no obli∣gation to prove my tenet, but onely to show that his ar∣guments were unconclusive. Hence also is discover'd how manifestly weak and ridiculous Mr. H. was in the se∣cond part of the most substantial Chapter of his book of Schism, where hemakes account he hath evidence S. Pe∣ter had not the Keyes given him particularly, by solving our places of Scripture for that tenet: where (besides other faults in that process, which Schism Disarm'd told him of,) he commits three absurditi••••. First, in putting him∣self upon the side of the Defendant; wheras he ought and pretended to evidence, that is, to prove. Secondly, by imagining that the solving an Argument is an Evidence for the contrary; whereas the force of such a solution is terminated onely in showing that illation weak, but leaves it ind••fferent whether the thing in it self be so or no, or evi∣dently deducible from some other Argument. Thirdly, he falsly supposes that we build our Faith upon those places of the written words, as explicable by wit, not by Tradition, and the practise of our Church, whereas we onely own the delivery from father to son as the Ground of all our belif, and make this the onely Rule by which to explicate Scripture. However some Doctors of ours un∣detrake sometimes ex superabundanti to argue ad homi∣nem, and show our advantage over them, even in that which they most pretend to.

I know Mr. H. will object that all this time I have pleaded for him, whiles I went about to strengthen the title of Possession; since they are at present in actual Pos∣session of their Independency from the Pope: and there∣fore that in all the consequences following thence I have but plow'd his ground with mine own heifer. But the Reader may please to consider, that, though I spoke be∣fore of Possession in general and abstractedly, yet, in de∣scending to particular sorts of Possessions, we must take along with us those particular circumstances which ne∣cessarily accompany them, and design them to be such. Since then it were unworthy the wisdom of the Eternal Father, that our Blessed Saviour Iesus Christ, coming to plant à Church, should not provide for it's Being and Peace, which confist in Order and Government; it fol∣lows that Christ instituted the Government of the Church. In our case then the Possession of Government must be such a Possession, as may be presumable to have come from Christ's time; not of such an one, as every one knows when it began. Since then it is agreed upon by all sides, that this present possession the Protestants now have of their Independency was begun lately, it is impossible to presume it to be that which was instituted by Christ, unless they evidence the long settled possession of that Authority they renounced to have been an usurpation; and, on the contrary, unless they evidence this, that Possession is justly presumable to have come from Christ's time, the maintainers and claimers of it making this their main tenour, that truly it came from Christ. Now then seeing we hear no news from any good hand, nor manifest tokens of the beginning of this universal and proud Vsurpation, which could not in reason but draw af∣ter it a train of more visible consequences, and be accom∣pany'd with a multitude of more palpable circumstances than the renouncing it in England, which yet is most no∣torious

to the whole world; again, since the disagree∣ment of their own Authours about the time of it evident∣ly shows that the pretended invasion of this Authority is not evident; hence, both for these and other reasons al∣so, such a Possession as this, is of it's self, and in it's own nature capable of pleading to have been derived from Christ, that is, to be that Possession which we speak of: whereas the other is discountenanc'd by it's confest and known original, which makes it not capable of it self to pretend that Christ instituted it, unless it be help't out with the additional proof, that it had been expulsed from an ancienter Possession by this usurpation of the Pope. So that, to say the truth, this present Possession of theirs makes nothing at all for their purpose, since it is no ways valid, but in vertute of their evidences that the same Pos∣session had been anciētly setled in a long peace before our pretended invasion: and if they can evidence this, and that we usurp't, then it is needless, and vain to plead pre∣sent Possession at all; since that Possession which is evi∣denced to have been before ours, is questionless that which was settled by Christ. In a word, though in humane af∣faires where Prescription has force, we use to call••t Pos∣session, when one hath enjoyed any thing for some cer∣tain time; yet in things of divine Institution, against which no prescription pleads, he onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that he had it nearer Christ's time: and by consequence, he who shall be found to have begun it later, unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter Possession, is not, for the present having such a thing or Power, to be styled a Pos∣sessour; but an Vsurper, an intruder, an invader, disobe∣dient, rebellious, and (in our case) Schismatical.

I am not ignorant that Dr. H. rawly affirmes that the Pope's Authority began in Phocas his time, but I hope no Reader that cares much for his salvation, wil take his

word for honest, till he show undeniable and evident matters of fact, concerning the beginning, progress, Au∣thours, abetters, opposers, of that newly introduc't Go∣vernment of Head of the Church, the writers that time for it, or against it, the changes it made in the face of the Ecclesiastical State, and the temporal also, with whose interest the other must needs be enlinsk't, and what con∣sequences follow'd upon those changes; together with all the circumstances which affect visible and extern actiōs. Otherwise, against the sense of so many Nations in the Church they left, the force of Tradition and so many un∣likelihoods prejudicing it, to tell us onely a crude Story that is was so, or putting us off with three or four quota∣tions in Greek to no purpose, or imagining some chimeri∣cal possibilities how it might have been done, hardly con∣sisting with the nature of mankind, is an Answer unwor∣thy a man, much more a Doctor; and to say that it crep't in invisibily and unobserved, as dreams do into men's heads when they are asleep, is the part of some dreaming dull head, who never lookt into the actions and nature of man, or compared them with the motives which should work upon them.

The eleventh Ground is, that Historical proofs which manifest onely Fact, do not necessarily conclude a Rig••t. This is evident; First, because testimonies conclude no more than then express: but they express onely the Fact: therefore they conclude onely that the Fact was such a person's, not that the Right was his. Secondly, because no matter of Fact which concerns the execution of any busi∣ness is such, but it may be performed by another who hath no proper Rigth, but borrows it from the delegation of some other, to whom it properly belongs; as we see in Vice-Roys. Thirdly, because in a process of fifteen or six∣teen hundred years it cannot be imagin'd but there should happen some matters of Fact either out of ambition, inter,

est, ignorance, or tyranny, against the most inviolable Right in the world; nay even sometimes out of too much zeal and piety, great men, if they have not discretion pro∣portionable, will be medling with things which do not concern them as we see by daily experience. Now a te∣stimony of a matter of Fact can never conclude any thing, unless it be first manifested that that Act our when he pro∣ceeded to action was bassed with none of these, but go∣verned himself by pure Reason; that is, unless it be ma∣nifested that he had Right: and if testimonies can be pro∣duced expressing that he had Right, it was needless to stand alledging those which express't onely Fact. Frivo∣lous therefore it is to bring historical proofs of Fact upon the stage, in a dispute about Right; since, taken alone, they make onely a dumb show, and can act no part in that Controversy: for the very alledging that some of these faults might intervene, disables such premises from inferring a Right. Neither ought Mr. H. (which, I sup∣pose for want of Logick, or forgetfulness how men use to dispute, he is ever apt to do) exact of the Defendant a reason of his denial in particular: but it is his part to pro∣ve that none of these defects could happen, otherwise his Premisses of Fact hang together with his Conclusion of Right by no necessity of consequence. Let the Reader then take notice by this plain information of reason, how senselesly Dr. H. behaved himself in the business of ere∣cting and translating Patriarchates, and in many other places, where from some particular matters of Fact he would needs conclude a Right.

The twelfth Ground is, that The acceptation of the se∣cular powers, and their command to the people, are neces∣sary to the due and fitting execution of the Churches Lawes; whence follows not that the Princes made those Lawes by their own Authority, but that they obey'd and executed what the Church had order'd: For unless the

Churche's Ordinances should be put into temporal laws, which oblige to their observance by aw and fear of punishment, they could hardly ever find an universal reception; since otherwise refractory and turbulent Spi∣rits, who cared not much for their obligation in con∣fcience, might at pleasure reject, disobey, and reclame a∣gainst them: which would both injure the Authority of the Church, and scandalize the community of the Faith∣full. This therefore being of such an absolute convenien∣cy for the Church, we need not wonder that the tempo∣ral power (of Christians) should put the Churche's orders into temporal Laws, and execute their performance; nor consequently can testimonies of such execution and laws, prejudice the Pope's Right, since Catholick Governours do the self same at present, (as far as concerns this point) which was done then.

The thirteenth Ground is, that It is granted by Catho∣licks, that Kings may exercise some Ecclesiastical Iuris∣diction, by the concession of the Church, and yet not pre∣judice thereby the Pope's Vniversal Pastourship. This is most visible from the unanimous acknowledgment of all Catholick Authours, and verifyed by divers practical in∣stances. Hence it is evident that Dr. H. must either ma∣nifest likewise, that the lawfulness of those matters of Fact related of Kings was not originiz'd from the Churche's precedent orders, or else he concludes nothing at all a∣gainst us. Here I desire the Reader & Mr. H. may joynt∣ly take notice, that the testimonies himself alledges from the Church in her Councils, granting this to the Secular power, is a strong prejudice against their self-and-proper Right; as also, that he hath not so much as attempted to produce one Testimony, of any Authority, expressing it to be the Right of the secular Magistrate, independent of the Church.

The fourteenth and last Ground is, that In case Scbism

should invade a whole Country, it could not be expected to have happen'd otherwise than D H. (of Schism c.) hath described. For it is to be expected that the secular power should be for it, and so use meanes to make the Clergy & Vniversities assent to his novelty: otherwise had either the Temporal Government awed them, the Pastours of souls consented to inform the people right, or the Vniversities (the Seminaries of learning) conspired to write against that innovation, in all likehood it would have given a stop to it's proceding, at least have hindred it's universal inva∣sion. Hence follows that Dr. H's narrative discourse of his Schism hath nothing in it to bewonder us; but rather, that it is as plain and particular a confession of the Fact, as any penitent malefactour could make when he is a∣bout to suffer. For, that a Nation may fall into Schism, none doubts; as little, that it should fall into it by those very means, and the same degrees which he there layes down. Nay more, himself disgraces his own Narration by confessing (p. 136.) that the Clergy were inclined to subscribe by the feare of a premunire: and the question about the Pope's Right in England being debated in the Vniversities, he sayes onely p. 135. that it was generally de∣fined in the negative; (that is when the King's party pre∣vailed) yet he omits that the Kings lust first moved him to think of Schismatizing, and his final repentance of that Act; which show that the first spring which mov'd the whole Engine was not purity of conscience, but the im∣purest and basest of passions.

The positions, which I have layed dow for Grounds to our future discourse, will of themselves lay open the whole case clearly to the ordinary Readers; and inform the more prudent ones, that nothing is or can be sayd by Dr H. of a force and clearness comparable to that of our Possession, and that of oral Tradition, which we ever ••laim'd for our Tenour; from which also they dis∣claimed,

when they reform'd in this point of the Pope's Supremacy. So that litle more remains to be perform'd, but to manifest his shallow weaknesses, and trivial im∣pertinences; which I should willingly omit, if the grea∣test part of Readers would be as willing to think a book fully answer'd, when substantial points are shown to be nothing, as they are to catch at the shadow of words as matters of importance, and so imagine nothing done, till they also be reply'd upon. Nor do I fear this task, though ingratefull in it's self and less necessary, will be voyd of fruit, specially to Mr. H's Friends, who may see by this Answer of mine, how bad that cause must be, which can cast so understanding a man, as some of them imagine him, upon such non sense, weaknesses of reasoning, vo∣luntary mistakes, falsifications, denying his own words, and many other ridiculous shifts, as shall be seen most amply in the process of this Treatise.