who denies it Therefore what Ergo Kings are supreme in Ecclesiastical affairs How follows that since the onely word is wanting to wit supreme which can make good the inference The affairs of the Head depend on the Arms and Shoulders therefore will the Doctor infer they are supreme or highest as though dependence could not be both mutual and unequal It must needs argue a Soul very empty of reason to catch thus at every shadow of any aery word and think to deduce thence a full sentence The fourth is from Optatus noting it as a schismatical piece of language in the Donatists to say Quod Imperatori cum Ecclesiâ What has the Emperor to do with the Church citing for it his second Book But though perhaps I may be mistaken in not seeing so small a Testimony I finde no such thing in that place he quotes Indeed I finde that ancient Father arguing like a present Catholike calling the Doctor Schismatick and quite confuting and contradicting all his book saying Negare non potes scire te in urbe Româ PETRO PRIMO Cathedram Episcopalem esse collatam in quâ sederit omnium APOSTOLORUM CAPUT PETRUS Thou canst not deny that in the City of Rome the Episcopal Chair was given to PETER THE FIRST in which sate PETER THE HEAD OF ALL THE APOSTLES Then he proceeds to reckon up all the Popes of Rome successors of S. Peter till Pope Siricius who lived in his days Cum quo nobis totus orbis in commercio Formatorum in unâ Communionis societate concordat With whom the whole world agrees in one society of Communion by correspondence of communicatory Letters And afterwards probatum est nos esse in Ecclesiâ Sanctâ Catholicâ per Cathedram Petri quae nostra est per ipsam caeteras Dotes apud nos esse etiam Sacerdotium It is proved that we are in the holy Catholike Church by the chair of Peter which is ours what will become of the Doctor who can lay no claim nor hath any right to it nay hath disclaimed its right and who findes here a reason why we may justly be called Roman Catholikes It follows and by the chair of Peter other gifts are also with us even Priesthood Alas poor Doctor Hammond who having lost Communion with that Church hath lost also his Priesthood Mission and power to preach if this holy Father say true What hard fortune it was that Optatus lived not in the primitive times for then the Doctor had believed him and turned Papist but in regard he wrote after the three hundreth year the fatal period of any certain truth in Gods Church as the Doctor afterwards intimates he hath quite lost his labour and his Authority is invalid for writing Truth so late As for the Testimony it self which probably is this Fathers in some other place I see no difficulty at all in it For the Emperor being a nursing Father to the Church whose secular power she invoked to punish and repress such as were the Donatists none but Schismaticks would deny that power so granted to be sufficiently Authoritative to punish their pernicious Apostasie Then follow six Testimonies out of heathen writers all in a cluster that their Kings ought to be Priests and Augurs c. and the Doctor would have the example transfer'd to Christianity Indeed if Iesus Christ had not come from heaven to found a Church and besides what hath been said of St. Peters Primacy left it under the Government of Ecclesiastical persons the Apostles committing all jurisdiction in affairs of that nature to them without dependence of any secular superior then for any thing I know we might have come ere this to have been in statu quo prius that is Heathens again and so the Doctors Argument might have ta'ne place But if Christ founded a Church upon Apostles Ecclesiastical persons without the help of secular supports leaving all power both of Ordination and Iurisdiction to it the Doctor must either prove no disparity between the sacred oeconomy of Christs House and the Babel of heathenism or else grant his parity improper and absurd I never imagin'd there was any such extraordinary holiness in the heathenish Rites but a secular power might serve to perform and overlook them And as the reason why they were used by the Emperors was onely because their mock-Religion was nothing but a policy to delude and bridle the vulgar so if Christian Religion were nothing but a trick of State-policy it would do very well indeed in a secular Princes hands to alter and fashion it to the mold of the peoples humors But our all-wise God hath dealt more prudently with his Church encharging his sacred Mysteries and the Churches-Government to those persons whose very state of life being purely dependent on God and his service secures them from being cross-byass'd by worldly interests and secular pretences Yet the Doctor is so deeply immers'd in Schism that he relishes and fancies better the Pope-destroying example of heathen policy then the ever-sacred and heaven-instituted Government of Christianity His eleventh instance is from David who order'd the courses of the Priests and Solomon who consecrated the Temple but the Doctor may consider that David and Solomon were Prophets as well as Kings and so no wonder if according to the more particular prudence given them by God they did something extraordinary Neither doubt I but if nowadays any King were both a Saint and a Prophet it were very convenient he should assist and instruct the Church in a more particular way and yet not thank his Kingly Dignity for that Authority neither But indeed neither David nor Solomon shewed any strain of a higher Jurisdiction Their greater zeal might invite them and their exacter knowledge make their assistance requisite to order the courses of the Priests And as for Solomons Consecrating the Temple it was performed by offering Sacrifice which he himself offer'd not but the Priests so as his Consecrating it was nothing else but his causing them to Consecrate it A pittiful proof that Kings are over the Church in Ecclesiastical affairs His twelfth Testimony is of Hezekiah and Iosiah who ordered many things belonging to the Temple So wonderfully acute is this Doctor that no King can do a pious deed or even scarce say his Prayers but his honor-dropping-pen streight way entitles him Head of the Church His thirteenth is of St. Paul who saith he appealed from the judgement of the chief Priests to the Tribunal of Caesar. So as now Caesar a Heathen Emperor is become Head of the Church nay of two Churches according to Master Hammond the Heathenish and the Christian. But the good Doctor is most grievously mistaken here as he hath been almost in every place of Scripture he hath yet produc't I observe that though he be pretty good at mistaking all over his Book yet when he omes to alleadge any thing out of Gods Word he errs far more accurately For St. Paul appealed
Apostles the Doctor will not deny the first to signifie St. Peter to whom he and his fellows are content at least to grant from our Saviours words a priority of Order This first foundation then shadowing to us St. Peter is here Chap. 21. 19. said to be a Iasper the self-same Stone whose lustre shined in our Saviour Apoc. 4. 3. and also in his Church Apoc. 21. 11. Whence follows would the Doctor triumphantly cry out as an IRREFRAGABLE EVIDENCE that St. Peter onely having the same lustre with our Saviour is like him in representation and so onely he resembles him as his Vicegerent or Vicar As also that being the same Stone the Church is made of and the first of all the rest it is unquestionably true would he say that he is the first part of the Church that is her Head Under what luckless Constellation was Mr. Hammond born to meddle with the Foundation-stones in the Apocalypse and not fore see this dangerous rub which makes him so far from evidencing against us thence that the very place objected happens to be an Evidence against himself I mean such a kinde of proof as he would call an Evidence And thus he concludes his fourth Chapter containing the first substantial part of his Book In which as I sincerely profess I have not found one word to the purpose that is not one restrictive word of St. Peters Universal Pastorship nor one express equalizing term of his power of the Keys to the rest of the Apostles so I must confess withal that I have both wearied my own patience in laying open such a gallimaufry of shallow impertinences and I fear my Reader also who may think his time ill-employ'd in perusing the confutation of so weak a Writer The Second Part. Comprehending the Answers of the Fifth Sixth and Seventh Chapters SECT 1. Of the pretended Primogeniture of Antioch and the Doctors mistake of the Council of Chalcedon THis Champion of Schism having as he thought empal'd the Universal Jurisdiction of St. Peter to the dispersed Iews onely proceeds laying first his own mistakes for his grounds in this fifth Chapter to depose the Pope which he entitles thus The Evidences from the Bishop of Romes succeeding Saint Peter examined as he did the fore-going Chapter The pretended Evidences of the Romanists c. Where first he would perswade many good honest Readers that he had urged our Evidences home and afterwards salved them whereas indeed he onely puts down a word or two of our bare tenet and that not even as we explicate it much less as we evidence it Secondly He would seem to intimate again that it belongs to us to evidence Let the Doctor know the Churches Evidence is her long-and-quietly enjoy'd possession of the belief of Infallibility in which she was actually found when his upstart and disobedient Forefathers the first Reformers went out from her-Communion POSSIDEO QUIA POSSIDEO OLIM POSSIDEO PRIOR POSSIDEO is all the Evidence and all the reason she is bound to give to her rebel-sons and out-lawed Subjects So as it is your part to evidence hers to hold and possess her own till you sufficiently that is demonstrably evidence her title to be unjust Thirdly The Doctor is here also as indeed generally every where contrary to himself inscribing the Chapters as answers to our Evidences yet spending almost the whole Chapters in producing pretended Evidences of his own so performing the quite contrary to what he promised But this is nothing with him His first Paragraph sayes onely That St. Peter having no Primacy the Bishop of Rome his Successor could consequently have none But because his Antecedent hath already been dash'd in peeces by my Answer to his former Chapter no Consequence can be built upon it till he have repaired his ground-work by a stronger Reply Yet Mr. Hammond is so self-conceitedly confident of the invincibleness of his former Chapter that he accounts this a work of Supererogation Whereas if to prove his first Evidence he hath produced any one express Testimony That St. Peters Iurisdiction was limited to the Iews onely which onely was the thing in question or if to prove his second EVIDENCE he hath produced any one express place to prove That the Keys though given to all yet were not more particularly given to St. Peter which onely is there the thing in question I will quit the field and yeeld though not my cause yet my own particular conquer'd But if he have not what a vanity is it to brag when he had said nothing at all to the Controversie that he hath said all that is necessary nay even supererogated and said more then needs In this second Paragraph the Doctor would evidence That the Priviledges attending St. Peters succession belong rather to the Bishop of Antioch then of Rome And this he endeavors by asking three Questions to which I shall answer in order First he asks Whether St. Peter did not as truly plant a Church of Iewish believers at Antioch and leave a Successor Bishop there as at Rome he is supposed to have done I answer If you mean he planted a Church there of Iewish believers onely so as he had no power over the Gentiles also I absolutely deny it and in your last Chapter your proper place to prove it in you had not one word to bless your self with but what you added of your own That he left a Successor Bishop there If you mean such an improperly call'd Successor as both himself and St. Paul left in many other places that is made some one a Bishop and left him to overlook and govern that Church I easily grant but if you mean such a Successor as should succeed in the amplitude of Saint Peters authority so as St. Peter should devest himself of his Primacy and give it him not carrying it along with him to Rome I deny he left there any such kinde of Successor neither can there be the least shadow of Reason why he should nor is there any Testimony or Ground that he did Your second Quere is Whether this were not done by him before ever he came to Rome I answer in the manner I have declared doubtless he did Your third Quere is Whether these two Concessions do not devolve all power and jurisdiction on the Bishop of Antioch St. Peters Successor there which by that tenure and claim of Succession from St. Peter can be pretended to by the Bishop of Rome I answer the first is not a Concession unless first distinguished as I shewed before and the distinction given intercepts the passage to his Conclusion To manifest which the better we may distinguish in St. Peter resident at Antioch two diverse qualities of dignity First his particular care of that Church as private Bishop in that See Secondly his publick office of Head of the Church in which consists his Primacy Now when he left that City and went to Rome he devested himself of the private care of
in the 23 Section that this is affirmed and intended by Balsamon to all Canons in general as the judgement of learned men in his notes on the sixteenth Canon of the Council of Carthage hath already been answered and shown that it is not Balsamon who affirms it but other men neither doth he call them learned men as the Doctor here imposes on him but onely says that some men say the Emperor can do such and such things And he adds that those persons proceed upon this ground that the Emperor may do lawfully whatever he lists His last Paragraph for which as his former custom was he reserves the best of his strength proves that this right of Kings to be head in Ecclesiastical affairs cannot be alienated by prescription The testimony he introduces is of one Sayr a late Monk who wrote his Book at Rome a man likely to speak much in the Doctors behalf whose opinion in case he should say any thing against us being but of a private Casuist may with the like facility be rejected as alleadg'd But what says honest Sayr he tells us that when prescription is neither of the Law of Nature nor the divine Law nor the Law of Nations but onely the civil and Canon Law there it extends no farther then every supreme Prince in his Realm by his Law is supposed to will that it shall be extended and therefore that no subject can prescribe exemption from making appeal to his King or that his Prince may not punish him when Reason and Iustice requires Let the testimony it self be what it will what was the Doctor dreaming on when he produced it Marry he dreamt two things First that the Pope had heretofore prescribed against the Kings of England in their pretended right of being head in Ecclesiastical matters next this prescription of the Pope hath not its force from any thing but a Canon or Civil Law These two points the Doctor dreamingly supposes to be certain principles and it is discourtesie in us not to grant them gratis for fear we should spoil his learned Conclusion What a shame is this for a Doctor of Divinity whereas every boy that hath been but two years at Cambridge knows he is first to establish his premises firmly ere he can claim any certainty of truth in his Conclusion to suppose his premises true and upon that grant kindly made by himself to himself conclude at pleasure what he lists And what an unconscionable piece of affected ignorance is this to bring a Testimony which could not possibly be applyed to his purpose without proving the two former self-made suppositions and yet to neglect that necessary task and conclude in these vain words It were easie to apply this distinctly to the confirming of all that hath been said but I shall not expatiate It is now become an old excuse with the Doctor to cry he is out of his way when he comes to a passage he cannot get over but all-to-be-labours things frivolous and which his self-laid grounds once supposed would be out of question Thus you see an end of his sixth Chapter which was totally built upon this ground that the Authority of Head of the Church was no more then Patriarchal and consequently needed in rigour of dispute no other reply but onely to deny the supposition and bid him prove it What has been answered to each particular was onely to let the Reader see how inconsequently and weakly he builds even upon his own foundations SECT 8. A Reply to Doctor Hammonds Narrative Confession of his Schism THe Doctor having laid his tottering grounds for the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs by alleadging some Testimonies expresly against himself and his cause and not one expresly for them but what his fellow-schismaticks afforded him Next having supposed upon his own strongly-dreaming imagination without one direct place of any Authentick writer against clouds of most plain Testimonies from Fathers and Councils frequent in our Controvertists and not touched by him in way of answer against the most visible practice and universal belief of the whole Catholick world that the Pope is onely a private Patriarch and hath no right of Jurisdiction over the universal Church And lastly out of a few Testimonies witnessing de facto that Kings did erect and remove Patriarchates without any word excluding the Churches precedent orders having concluded that such a power belonged de jure to Kings and was annext to a Crown These three things most gravely supposed he goes about to clear the Church of England from the imputation of casting off obedience to the Bishop of Rome at the Reformation which is the intent of this Chapter But first he lays down at large the whole history of Schism ommitting onely the main things that might disgrace it and by what degrees or steps this miserable Kingdom and Church came to renounce the obedience to those Ecclesiastical superiors who had by their own confession for eight or nine hundred years steered that-then-secure Barque in a calm unity of Faith and which Authority all the then present world except King Henry's now friend but late Antagonist Luther acknowledged and submitted to First he tells us this was done by the Clergy in a Synod recognizing the King to be supreme Head of the Church of England Secondly By their submitting themselves to the King and thirdly the definition of the Universities and Monasteries after debate that the Pope had nothing to do more in England then any other extern Bishop that is nothing at all And all this in this sort concluded subscribed and confirmed by their corporal oaths which word corporal was well put in for their Souls and Consciences never went along with it was afterwards turn'd into Acts of Parliament in which it was resolved upon the question to defie the Pope and all his works In answer to which though a bare narration how a Schism was made deserve none yet to devoid it of al excuse it may pretend to I object first that it did not originally spring from Conscience no not even an erroneous one but from manifest malice and viciousness Next that the Kingdoms assent to this il originiz'd breach was not free And thirdly that though both these were granted yet this act of theirs so largely laid out by Doctor Hammond is truly and properly a Schism and entitles them schismaticks nay the more the Doctor dilates upon it the more schismatical he makes the breach of which the two latter himself though never so loath must acknowledge unless he will deny his own words To begin with the first all the world knows that till King Henry violenced the breach all England both Clergy and Laity were as equally and as peaceably conjoyned to the Catholike Church under the government of her supreme Pastour the Bishop of Rome as either France or Spain are now neither did they ever express any scrupulosity that they had remained under such a Government ever since the Conversion of their first