heard off to infer an exclusive distinction and limitation of Authority from terms plainly promiscuous and from which a confusion of jurisdiction might more properly be deduced So as not a letter of the question is found in the testimony but what Mr. Hammond with a blinde Id est addes of his own Insomuch as it is left a drawn match whether his ID EST or WE KNOW be the better Testimony However this is certain that in the Doctors apprehension they are both of them most absolute EVIDENCES because it is most evident he says them both without either Authority or Reason He labors in the next place to found a distinction of the Iewish and Gentile Church at Antioch which though it be not a jot to his purpose had he demonstrated it yet it is pity to see what shifts he is put to in proving it Necessity makes many a man forfeit his honesty aâ— this Doctor hath also done too plainly here Where he abuses most grosly St. Peter with his Jewish Proselytes and the sacred Scripture too citing Gal. 2. 11. That they withdrew from all communion and society with the Gentile Christians Whereas in the Text there is no such word as ALL in which alone he can found the distinction of the Jewish and Gentile Church Neither as the place alleaged manifests did they any otherwise withdraw from them thaâ— in refusing onely to eat the Gentile diet yet this he calls withdrawing from ALL COMMUNION as if the Doctor made account there were no other Communion but in eating and drinking Moreover since to withdraw from all Communion with another Church is against fraternal Charity and according to his formerlylaid grounds a Schism a sin inexcusable by such light trifles as were then between them it follows most necessarily that while he goes about to prove a perfect distinction of the two Churches at Antioch he hath consequently made the Iewish Church for withdrawing from all Communion with the Gentiles Schismatical and blessed St. Peter himself a Schismatick nay a ring-leader of Schismaticks But God be praised the place is proved to be falsified and so good St. Peter is vindicated His fourth Testimony or EVIDENCE of the mutually-exclusive Jurisdictions of these two Apostles is taken from the writer of the Apostolical Constitutions who as the Doctor saith pag. 75. ACCORDINGLY tells us that Evodius and Ignatius at the same time sate Bishops of Antioch one succeeding St. Peter the other St. Paul one in the Iewish the other in the Gentile Congregation Whereas the place alledged in the Author which I will put down because he slubberingly omits it is onely this Lib. 7. cap. 46. Antiochiae Evodius ordinatus est à me Petro Ignatius à Paulo At Antioch Evodius was ordained by me Peter Ignatius by Paul This is all there being neither before nor after a syllable more concerning that matter Where besides that the Doctor will I am sure acknowledge the Book of no sound Authority you see the Testimony produced expresseth onely their Ordination by the Apostles but saith nothing of their sitting together nor succeeding the Apostles much less talks of the distinction of the Iewish or Gentile Congregation least of all of any mutual Exclusiveness of St. Peter and St. Pauls Jurisdiction there but all these which are indeed all that is to the purpose are either voluntarily added by the Doctor or groundlesly supposed or else must be pretended as deducible thence by Mr. Hammonds all-proving ID EST. However the story goes for it matters not much whether it be true or no it is manifest first that the Doctor hath not brought a syllable of a proof to serve his turn were it granted Next that the Testimonies by himself alleaged here out of Eusebius and Origen calling Ignatius the second and out of St. Ierom calling him the third make much against the sitting of two together Neither will he finde St. Paul was ever accounted a Parcel-Bishop in Antioch with St. Peter that he should have a properly-call'd Successor there However he might perhaps ordain some Bishop to assist there after his departure Lastly ere he sees what he does he blindly sweeps down all his own laborious Cobweb-work with a Testimony out of Theodoret which affirms that Ignatius received the Archisacerdotal honor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the hand of that great Apostle St. Peter where the Doctor leaves out the word Great Iest St. Peter should have too much Now then The Apostolical Constitutions being a Book which is excepted against by all sides and Theodoret being an Author beyond exception we have far more reason to judg by these Testimonies that Great St. Peter ordained Ignatius also rather then Euodius onely so as the Doctor is far from gaining nay even comes off with no small loss from his own Testimonies notwithstanding the faithful endeavors of his ID EST to the contrary His fifth Testimony is out of St. Irenaeus which affirms that the Apostles founded and built the Church at Rome The sixth which the Doctor praises for more express is of St. Epiphanius who testifies That Peter and Paul were Apostles and Bishops in Rome The seventh from Eusebius who tells us That the Inscriptions on the Apostles Tombs mentions them as Founders of that Church The eighth is from Gaius an ancient writer who calls their Monuments The Monuments of them that founded that Church The ninth is out of Dionysius of Corinth who affirms both of the Church of Rome and Corinth That each of them was the foundation of Peter and Paul The tenth out of St. Prosper who witnesseth That Peter and Paul the Apostles consecrated or constituted a Church in the City of Rome These are six Testimonies of his which I have put down in order as they lay and fully as he cited them not omitting a syllable And now tell me I beseech thee good Reader for it may be thou hast better eyes then I canst thou discern any the least word in any of these six Testimonies which even seems afar off to limit St. Peters authority to the Jews and St. Pauls to the Gentiles which is the point in question Is there any thing spoken here more than in a general and promiscuous sense That they builded founded a Church were Bishops c. Do they â—ound any distinction or exclusiveness of Jurisdiction When thou hast well examin'd thiâ— next please to consider that to evidence by Testimonies cannot be done otherwise than by expressing the thing to be evidenced Which thing in our present case being the restriction limitation exception and exclusion of St. Peters jurisdiction which as given to our Saviour to him and the other Apostles was without controversie Universal this cannot be expressed nor consequently evidenced by Testimonies otherwise then by restrictive limitative exceptive and exclusive terms such as are Onely solely alone to none else c. This once understood and apply'd to the present occasion and the Doctors manner of proceeding whosoever thou art that
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
the fourth and yet was ordain'd by St. Peter refused the Office till the successive death of Linus and Cletus to which solution recur S. Epiphanius Ruffinus c. but none ever dream'd of Dr. Hammonds facile all-solving Scholion That Linus was the first Bishop of the Gentile-Christians after S. Paul Clemens the first of the Iewish after St. Peter which had been very obvious to those that lived so neer those times but the reason why they did not is evident because they never dream'd of a distinction of Iewish and Gentile Church and Bishops whereas the Doctor dreams of nothing else The Fathers and ancient Writers were alas in a great mistake imagining that all the endeavors of the Apostles as far as they could without scandalizing either part tended to reduce both the Iews and Gentiles to Unity and Uniformity in one Church and to unite them in him whom they taught and preacht to be the Head Cornerstone Christ Iesus in whom is no distinction of Iews and Gentiles till one Mr. Hammond a Protestant Minister came with his Scholions and Id ests to teach them contrary doctrine In the beginning of the thirteenth Section he affirms stoutly That for another great part of the world it is manifest that St. Peter had never to do either mediately or immediately in the planting and governing of it If it be so manifest Master Hammond it had been easier for you to make it manifest to us and was requisite you should it being your proper task otherwise to cry it is manifest and yet bring nothing to prove it is as much as to say It is manifest because I fancy it so But as before you brought the invincible Testimonies of WE KNOW and WE MAKE NO QUESTION for EVIDENCES so now onely with an authentick IT IS MANIFEST you think the deed done and your cause evinced In his fourteenth Section he tells us That St. John had the dignity of place before all others in Christs life time even before St. Peter himself This he proves plainly he says from his style of beloved Disciple and leaning on Christs brest at Supper As if because Iacob loved Ioseph more then all his other Brethren and therefore out of particular favor might have let him lean on his brest at Supper it must needs mean plainly that yong Ioseph was the highest of his Brethren in dignity had due to him the birth-right and inheritance c. And who sees not that the posture of leaning on Christs brest at Supper was not an orderly and ordinary manner of sitting but onely a peculiar grace and familiarity used towards him by his Lord yet the Doctor is certain of it and for more security gives us a gallant instance That leaning on Christs brest signifies the first place next to Christ as being in Abrahams bosom plainly signifies saith this All-explaining Doctor being in dignity of place next to the Father of the Faithful From which instance of his if true it follows that Lazarus who was in Abrahams bosom was above all the Patriarchs and Prophets except Abraham as also that none was in Abrahams bosom except Lazarus onely since there can be no more NEXTS but one But it is no wonder to see the Doctor trip now who hath stumbled nay faln down flat on all-four so often In the rest of this Paragraph he tells us That the Jews in the Lydian Asia were St. Iohns peculiar Province in the next that the Gentiles there were St. Pauls and when he hath done destroyes both the one and the other with a Testimony out of St. Chrysostom concerning St. Paul which says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A whole entire Nation that of Asia was entrusted to him To which joyn what is manifest all over in the Acts that St. Paul preached to the Jews in Asia it is palpable that this Testimony affirms St. Paul to have had Jurisdiction over all in Asia both Jews and Gentiles Again since the Doctors groundâ— make the Jurisdictions of the Apostles exclusive to one another and this place tells us that the whole entire Nation of Asia was under St. Paul it must follow out of his doctrine of Exclusive Iurisdiction that poor St. Iohn had not so much as the place of a Parish-Priest allow'd him of his own but what he was beholding to St. Paul for What an unpardonable blindness was this to prove St. Paul over the Gentiles onely by a Testimony which entitles him to the whole entire Nation SECT 12. Another dumb show of Dr. Hammonds Testimonies to prove St. Peter over the Iews onely AFter such invincible Testimonies alleaged the Doctor begins to triumph and tells us That we cannot say any thing in any degree probable for St. Peters Universal Pastorship over the Churches in the Lydian Asia And the reason he gives is because they were so early famous as that Christ honored them with an Epistle in the Revelations It must be a wonderful acuteness in Logick which can make this conclude Christ wrote an Epistle to those Churches therefore St. Peter had nothing to do with them As if the same reason did not as well exclude all the rest of the Apostles as St. Peter from their Jurisdiction But the Doctor says they were early famous I ask him were they earlier than our Saviours chusing twelve Apostles and Simon Peter the first if not their earliness will not hurt us nor help you His next two demands concerning St. Iohns and St. Pauls Jurisdiction there are already answer'd out of his own Testimony from St. Chrysostom It follows Doth not â—t Paul give him meaning Timothy full instructions and such as no other Apostle could countermand or interpose in them leaving no other Appeal nor place of Application for farther directions save Onely to himself when he shall come to him And then to make the Reader believe that all this is Scripture he quotes for it immediately 1 Tim. 3. 14 15. Doctor Doctor play fair above board In the place you quote there is not one word of all this long rabble but the bare word Come as is evident even in your own translation where I finde it thus These things write I unto thee hoping to come unto thee shortly But if I tarry long that thou maist know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the House of God the pillar and ground of truth Where in the fifteenth Verse there is nothing at all of this rambling story which the Doctor talks of in the fourteenth Verse onely the word Come So as out of this seemingly-barren Monosyllable Come the Doctor hath miraculously caused a fruitful harvest of Testimonies arise for his purpose to wit That St. Paul gave him such instructions as NO OTHER APOSTLE COULD COUNTERMAND OR INTERPOSE IN THEM that he left NO APPEAL or place of Application for further directions save ONELY TO HIMSELF c. Where are all those quarrelling and exceptive terms But the Doctor seems willing not onely to limit the Apostles
Since the giving the Keys is particularly applied to St. Peter and that those Keys are a token of an Oeconomy or Stewardship in Christs house it follows the Apostles being a part of Christs house or his Church that Saint Peter was constituted Ecclesiastical Steward over them Fourthly The Doctors inference from the particular Application of these words to St. Peter That the Stewardship belongs to single persons and not to Consistories and Assemblies If he intend to deduce hence a power in all the rest of the Apostles and all other Prelates superior to their Assemblies or Consistories is something scrued and far-fetch'd whereas if the words be applied to infer That one was made Steward or Superior in the Consistory or Assembly of the Apostles they are plain and obvious the present circumstances making that Explication natural Lastly Saint Peter being thus constituted Steward in Christs house all that follows in the Doctor though otherwise meant runs on very currantly and upon his grounds to wit 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 Thus hath Doctor Hammond while he disputes against his Brother Presbyters faln into a sudden fit of Popery and at unawares laid grounds for a greater Authority in the Pope then many Papists will grant him But it is onely a fit he will recover I doubt not speedâ—ly as soon he begins to combate us afresh But now as I said the Scene is chang'd The Presbyterian being routed by our weapons that the words were spoken particularly to St. Peter he throws them away affirming here pag. 88. most shamelesly and expresly against Scripture alleaged by himself which named St. Peter in particular and no other in particular That this power was as distinctly promised to each single Apostle as to St. Peter alleages for his first Evidence the words of Scripture Matth. 18. 18. which he says are most clear for that purpose But looking into the Text I finde it onely spoken in common and general to all the Apostles not a word particularizing each single Apostle and distinctly as the Doctor would have it which yet was done to Saint Peter Matth. 16. 19. His second most clear proof is introduced with the old ACCORDINGLY thus And ACCORDINGLY Matth. 19. the promise is again made of twelve Thrones for each to sit on to judge ID EST saith the Doctor to rule or preside in the Church Well done Doctor give you but your own proper weapon of ID EST in weilding which you have a marvellous dexterity and I 'll lay an hundred crowns on your head against the best disputant in Christendom All the world as far as I ever heard except this Doctor understands the place as meant of our Saviours coming to judgment at the Resurrection and the Apostles sitting with him to judge But the Doctor with the help of an ID EST hath made the day of Judgment come in the Apostles time turned judge into preside and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Throne or Iudgment seat into Cathedra an Episcepal Chair or See His third proof is a dumb Negative That the Holy Ghost descended on all the Apostles in fire without any peculiar mark allowed to St. Peter Which reduced into form mutters out thus much That St. Peter had no peculiar mark of fire Ergo concludes the Doctor He was not head of the Apostles Where first I would ask the Doctor how he knows there was no peculiar mark allowed St. Peter He was not there I suppose to see and there is no History either sacred or prophane that expresses the contrary Next if we may judge by exterior actions and may believe That out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks then perhaps the Doctor may receive some satisfaction in this point also that St. Peter had in a more peculiar manner the Holy Ghost For it was he that first burst out into that Heavenly Sermon which converted three thousand But nothing will serve the Doctors curiosity except a greater tongue of fire if he have not that it is most clear he is no head of the Apostles What a wise man is he to think St. Peter could not be chief Pastor of the Church but God must needs be bound to watch all occasions to manifest it by a particular miracle His fourth is from these words And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost In the name of Wonder what can be deduced from this place against St. Peters Primacy The Doctor will manifest it plainly And so saith he the promise of the spirit EQUALLY performed to all Suppose it were equally what follows thence Therefore St. Peter not chief of the Apostles As if none could be higher in dignity but he must necessarily have more of the Holy Ghost in him This Reason then you see is so shallow that even a childe may foard it but his consequence is still shallower inferring from their being full of the Holy Ghost that they had it equally As if each could not be full according to their diverse capacities and yet receive it in a very unequal degree Our Saviour Luke 4. 1 is said to be full of the Holy Ghost so is Barnabas Acts 11. 24. yet as I hope the Doctor will not say Barnabas had the Holy Ghost equally with our Saviour So all the Saints in Heaven are full of Glory yet differ as one Star from another in the degrees of that Glory distributed to them according to the measure of their several capacities Which puts me in minde of a story of a Plough-man who dining with his fellowrusticks when his companions strove to get the bigger Eggs he indifferently chose the lesser affirming That all were equal For which when he was laught at he defended himself with this as he thought serious Reason That the little Eggs had as much meat in them as they could hold and the great ones had no more and therefore there was no difference between them Surely the Doctor heard this dispute stole the Argument and now infers here from all being full of the Holy Ghost that all had it equally The Testimonies you alleage out of the Fathers That the power of the Keys was conforred on all the Apostles that from the giving St. Peter tho Keys the continual successions of Bishops flows that the Church is built upon the Bishops c. We allow of to a tittle and charge it upon you at either a pittiful ignorance or a malicious calumny to pretend by objecting those that we build not the Church upon Bishops in the plural nor allow any authority to them but to the Pope onely whereas you cannot but know how great Authority we give to Councils consisting of Bishops insomuch as it is a School-dispute amongst our Writers Whether the Pope or the Council be of higher
Authority Neither do the Testimonies of Bishops in the plural in the least manner touch us there being not one word in them excluding the Pope Nay rather they make for us for the Church being founded on Apostles and Bishops prejudices not St. Peter and his Successors to be the chiefest And if so then the Church is built most chiefly and especially on St. Peter and his Successors which is all we Catholicks say and not on them onely which he first calumniates us with and then dreamingly impugns ending his two and twentieth Paragraph with a Testimony out of St. Basil who calls Episcopacy The Presidency of the Apostles the very same adds the Doctor That Christ bestowed upon all and not onely on one of them as if we held there were but one Apostle or else that those Bishops who succeeded the rest of the Apostles and were constituted by them were not truly and properly Bishops It follows in the next Section By all which that is by your omitting our best proof from Scripture and answering the weakest by supposing a calumny by your mistake of twelve Thrones by St. Peters having no greater a tongue of fire and all the Apostles being full of the Holy Ghost by the Testimonies of Fathers naming Bishops and Apostles in the plural our of which meer plurality he infers an equality of Authority By all this the Doctor says it is evident again That the Power which Christs Commission instated on St. Peter was in like manner entrusted to every other single Apostle as well as to him c. Whereas he hath not produced one syllable expressing any singularity used to any other single Apostle as was to St. Peter nor one equalizing term of as well equally c. but what he addes himself Though these be the onely expressions can serve him and which he pretends to here as already produced and by producing them to have made the matter Evident But the Doctor being by this time pump'd dry of his own Evidences betakes himself to his former method of answering our Arguments or as he calls it to evacuate them And what Argument think you will he chuse to evacuate but that which is drawn from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and how will he evacuate it but first from Homers Iliads next from the Revelations But indeed he puts our Argument so weakly or rather not at all that is he swallows our proof so glibly and yet evacuates it so groaningly that it were charity in some good body to ease him in this his greatest extremity The sum of his solution of I cannot tell what for he urges no Argument of ours but onely puts down the bare word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be this That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore signifies vulgarly a Stone and in Homers Iliads is applied to denote an huge loggerly Stone like a Mill-stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Next this Stone by the Scripture must needs be a foundation Stone and there being Twelve foundation-stones named in the Apocalypse called there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which before was a vulgar-stone is now advanced to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a precious stone Now follows his first inference as well as I can gather it That all the twelve Apostles being in like manner and not St. Peter onely and above the rest styled Foundation-stones it is consequent hence that all were equal Where first the Argument is again onely Negative to wit that no distinction is there put therefore there was none To make which inference good he must first shew that if there were any distinction it must necessarily be exprest upon all occasions Next it is a most pitiful peece of reason to perswade the Reader from onely a plurality and naming twelve Apostles that all were equal As if out of the very naming in the plural twelve Signs Shires Cities or Magistrates it must necessarily follow out of the bare common name of Sign Magistrate c. given to each of them that all were equal Again the Doctor hath quite overthrown his cause by arguing That not onely St. Peter but the rest also were called Foundation-stones and therefore they were all equal Since granting as he does that a Foundation-stone and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the same and onely St. Peter having the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it follows in the Doctors grounds That he onely and in good reason that he more particularly should be a Rock or Foundation-stone Where note that the Doctor would have all the Apostles call Peter for the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being given St. Peter by our Saviour for no other end but to signifie he was a Rock or as the Doctor will have it a Foundation-stone and every Apostle being according to Master Hammond equally such it follows That they have all as good title to be called Peter as that Apostle who alone till Master Hammond writ had that appellation It follows to strengthen his former weak reason And it being there in vision APPARENT that the wall of the City Id est of the Church being measured exactly and found to be an hundred forty four Id est saith he Twelve times twelve cubits It is evident That that mensuration assigns an equal proportion whether of Power or Province to all and every of the Apostles which is again a prejudice to the Universal Pastorship of any one of them Thus the Doctor intends for an up-shot-Argument to evidence an equality in all the Apostles by the equal division of this Wall But I crave leave to ask the Doctor whether he be certain that none of those precious Stones which equally made up this Wall is richer then the rest For the richness in things of this nature being more considerable and more enhancing their value then the bulk and quantity it follows That the greater preciousness and lustre which manifests it self in one above another may better claim a signification That that Apostle who is represented by it had an authority above the rest then the equal measure of the Wall can infer an equality nay more if there be an equality in the bigness and an inequality in the worth there is no evasion but it must resemble a worthier person In order to which there comes a congruous Argument to my minde such as if it were on the Doctors side and he had the managing of it I know he would make it a MOST IRREFRAGABLE and UNQUESTIONABLE EVIDENCE And though Catholicks who understand the grounds of their Faith â—light such poor supports as a self-fancied Explication of the obscurest part of Scripture in which chiefly consists the Doctors talent in evidencing yet because perhaps he may fancy it stronger then twenty demonstrations and so it may come to do him much good he shall have it very willingly Amongst these twelve pretious Foundation-stones denoting the twelve
Sacraments Government nor any thing though never so sacred left by our Saviour hath found any security SECT 3. An examination of some common notes produced by Dr. Hammond to particularize his Clients to bee no Schismaticks HIs 9th Ch. undertakes to clear his Church from the 2d sort of his Schism against mutual â—â—arity to wit from that Schism which is against extern Peace or Communion Ecclesiastical And first he alledges for his plea that they have retain'd the right form of Government c. So that now Schism against Subordination or Government for they are all one which was the first general Head of Schism and also comprehended under the first species of the second Head as appeares C. 8. S. 2. is by the Doctors accurate method come to be under the second species also of the same second General Head Which is all one as if dividing vivens into Sensitive and Insensitive and then subdividing the Genus of Sensitive into the two Species of Rational and Irrational or Man and Beast he should first treat of Insensitive the first Genus and that done fall in hand with Sensitive the second and then under each Species of that returne to treat professedly of Insensitive again that is to speak of Trees Shrubs and Herbs when he should speak of men and creatures endued with sence Surely Doctor Hammond is more methodical in his Sermons otherwise the World must needs look upon him as another S. Iohn Baptist because hee preaches in a Wilderness But let us follow him through all his Mazes distinguish't by no orderly path but what his own inconstant and desultorious track makes First then he tells us that they retaiâ— the Form of Government in and under which the Apostles â—ounded Ecclesiastical Assemblies or Communion viz. that of the Bishop and his inferioâ— Officers in every Church As if the Arian Hereticks who denied Christ to be God and almost all heresies that ever broke from Gods Church did not retain afterwards the Authority of their own Bishops But what availed it either them or you but to the greater danger of damnation if you adhered to those Bishops who had rejected the Authority of their former Superiours and taught you doctrines contrary to the Order of Gods Church without whose order much lesse against it they had no Authority to teach at all Again you tell us of one piece of your Government that of Bishops constituted indeed by the Apostles but you tell us not of the main hinge of your Churches Government which is of the King being its Head and Supreme in Ecclesiastical matters This is the sum and top of your Churches Government put us not off with an odd end of it This is that for substituting which in stead of the Ecclesiastical Head you rejected wee charge you of Schism and breach of Communion Ecclesiastical for in so doing you cut Gods Church into as many single headed and consequently diverse-bodied and disparate Congregations as there are Kingdoms in Christendome Shew us that this your Novelty in Government was practised by the Apostles in their Assemblies or instituted by them or their Blessed Master and then you will say something to the point Remember your purest times of the first 300. yeares shew us that all that time the Church was ordered by the Emperours Presidency or that this Government was instituted by Christ and his Apostles If you cannot then tell us how comes it to be held now as a chief point of Faith You may not in reason think to uphold your self your by testimonies out of the following ages unles you wil disavow your own grounds for those ages were as you say all impure Lay your hand then on your heart Mr. Hammond and tell us in good sadness if you be not gravell'd in your own doctrine while you maintain this new Lay Ecclesiastical Government His second plea is that as they maintain the Order of Bishops so they submit to the exercise of it acknowledging the Authority of those Governors In answer to which no new thing is to be said this being the very same with the former only First changed into Secondly For the obeying submitting to and acknowledging the due Authority of Governours is the very formal maintaining and accepting the Government which was his first branch So as this is another orderly production of the Drs. methodical Head which vents it selfe in first secondly thirdly c. upon all occasions though both his first second and third bee the selfe-same formal thing His third plea is that they observe the circumstances necessary to the assembling themselves for publick worship First that of place Churches Secondly that of time the Lords day primitive Festivals As if all Schismaticks in the World doe not meet at some set times and in some appointed and set places Thirdly Formes of prayer and praises almost all out of our Mass and Breviary Celebration of Sacraments onely five of them being quite abolish't and three quarters of the sixth Sacramentals Copes and Surplisses which you might by the same principles call rags of Rome Preaching against Christ and his Church such doctrine as none ever sent you or your first Fore-fathers to preach Cathechising infecting and imbuing tender and easie minds with your tainted doctrine Fourthly that of Ceremonies such as the practice of the Primitive Church hath sent down recommended to us Pray by whom did she send them down and recommend them to you Examine wel and you shall find that the same authority recommended to you many more as from her though you only accepted of what you thought convenient Lastly that of discipline to binde all to these performances Doubtlesse all Sects in the world impose some obligation upon their subjects to keep them together else they could not bee a Sect. Yet that your tie either to that or any thing else concerning Government is as slack as may be is manifest out of the slender provision made against Schism according to the Protestant grounds See Part 3. Sect. 1. as I have shewn in my answer to the fore-going Chapter Neither are you beholding to your doctrine for any discipline sufficient to hold you together in Unity a professed fallibility is too weak for that but to the secular Power the threat of whose sword held you in awe for a while but as soon as that Power was dissolv'd your slack-sinew'd Church which no tie either in Reason or Conscience held together bewrayed its composition and like the statue seen by Nabuchadonosor fell all to pieces It were not amiss ere I leave these three pleas already mentioned to take a second survey of them that the Reader may visibly perceive how less than nothing this Doctor hath said either to his or indeed any purpose To make this discovery sincere we must mark his intent and scope in this Chapter which is to free or clear their Church from the breach of Commmunion Ecclesiastical which he makes to consist in such and such things Now
unity of Church-government then not onely we but all the Angels and Saints in heaven who rejoyce at the conversion of sinners shall joyn in exalting Jubilees for the Blessed and long wish't for return of òur wandring and self-disinherited Brethren The former of these if Mr. Hammond will not beleeve it I have told him where he may see it as visibly as is possible any thing should be made to the eye of Reason The latter to wit the Popes Supremacy is defin'd in the Florentine Council subscribed to both by the Greek and Latine Churches where what the fourth General Council held at Chalcedon wrote to Pope Leo that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was over the members of the Church as their Head is more plainly exprest in these words Wee define that the holy Apostolical See and the Bishop of Rome have the primacy over all the world and that the Bishop of Rome is Successour to S. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and truly Christs Vicar and Head of the whole Church and the Father and Teacher of all Christians and that there was given him in S. Peter from Christ a full power to feed direct and govern the Catholike Church To these two points if the Protestant will subscribe that is secure inviolate that which touches the root and most vital and intrinsecal part of the Chruch to wit the Rule of Faith she will not stick to open her outward rind that is offer some violence to her uniformity in indifferent and more extrinsecal practises to re-ingraft their dry and sapless branch which now lies withering into her ever-flourishing body To which if these poor endeavours of mine may in the least contribute I shall for the future not reprehend but congratulate Dr. Hammond for his fortunate Errours and honour his ill grounded reasons as of richest value which by stirring up others to detest them and shew what weak pleas are producible for Schism became the happy occasion of his own and others salvation and of Embosoming the Daughter-Church of England in a Charitable Communion with her dearest Mother by whose painful throwes she was first born to Christ her Spouse at whose breasts shee suck'd the first milk of his Doctrine and from whose arms and ever-cherishing embraces first by the malignity of an ill-govern'd passion next by humane policy shee has been so long separated FINIS DOWN-DERRY OR Bishop BRAMHAL'S Iust Vindication of the Church of England refuted MY choice at first directed me rather to answer Mr. Hammond than my Lord of Derry having observ'd his Book not only to bear a greater vogue in the world but to be inwardly furnished with Arguments more suitable to the profession of a Divine But after I had advanc'd past the mid-way of my journey I met some Protestant friends who though formerly they had still cry'd up the Doctor yet soon as I told them in confidence that an Answer to his Schism would instantly bee ready for the the Press they immediately began to extol the Bishop and demand either a present Reply to him or else they should not spare to conclude the Victory their own When I had exprest how weak and unreasonable their discourse was which if admitted would always judg him to have the right cause that speaks the last word I parted with a promise if in stead of that sport which he far more than the other tempts a wit-at leasure to make with him they would accept of a short Refutation of the substantial passages I should not fail to endeavour their satisfaction which thus I perform Reading with some diligence the Bishops Book I find that as there is much commendable in it for industry so is it expos'd to an unavoidable Check of being Patron to an ill Cause whence it may bee a pattern of wit and labour but little assistance to the truth further than by shewing how weak Errour is But not to spend time and paper in vain let us state the controversie clearly that it may be seen how strongly and pertinently his Discourse proceeds Not that I intend minutely to examine his whole Work whereof the far greater part is little or nothing to our controversie as will appear by the bare stating the Question but onely to say enough for him whom the substance can content without engaging into unnecessary and circumstantial disputes He begins his Book telling us nothing can be objected with more colour of truth against the Church of England than that they have withdrawn themselves from obedience to the Vicar of Christ and separated from the Communion of the Catholike Church And that this crime is justly charg'd upon his Church not onely with colour but with undeniable evidence of fact will appear by the very position of the Case and the nature of his Exceptions As for the first it is unquestionably certain and universally assented to by all Protestants who understand any thing that at the beginning of Henry the eighths Reign nay at his first courting his Protestant Mistress the Church of England agreed with that of Rome and all the rest of her Communion in two Points which were then and are still the Bonds of Unity betwixt all her Members One concerning Faith the other Government For Faith her Rule was that the Doctrines which had been inherited from their Forefathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles were solely to bee acknowledg'd for obligatory and nothing in them to bee changed For Government her Principle was that Christ had made St. Peter First or Chief or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first Mover under him in the Church after his departure out of this world and to whom all others in difficulties concerning matters belonging to the universal either Faith or Government should have recourse And that the Bishops of Rome as Successors of St. Peter inherited from him this priviledge in respect of the Successors of the rest of the Apostles and actually exercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began It is no lesse evident that in the dayes of Edward the sixth Queen Elizabeth and her Successors neither the former Rule of Unity of Faith nor this second of Unity of Government which is held by the first have had any power in that Congregation which the Protestants call the English Church This is our chief objection against you As for us our Tenet is That those Churchs who continue in Communion with the Roman are the onely Churches which in vertue of the first Principle above mentioned have the true Doctrine and in vertue of the second the right Government and in vertue of both the unity and incorporation into the Church of Christ necessary for salvation And by consequence Wee hold them onely to make the entire Catholike or Universal Church of Christians all others by misbelief or Schism being excluded Now because no understanding man can deny this to be
Folio on the Bible 167 15 How Doctor H will have the allowance of a House to dwell in and Meat to eat the erection of a Primacy 172 16 The Doctor constant to his Principles putting the strongest Argument in the Rear 173 17 The Doctor cryes he is out of his way when he comes to a Passage he cannot get over 177 18 How Doctor Hammond blows and sups all at once 187 19 The Doctor as valiant as Sir Iohn Falstaff 211 20 Doctor Hammonds two sorts of Gifts given and not-given 214 21 How the Doctors ill-favored c. dashes out the best 221 22 Dr. H. like the Fellow that thought the Sun set at the next Town 226 23 The Doctors confusion for Methods sake 230 24 Dr. H. neither goes to Church nor stays at home 233 c. 25 The Doctors courteous point of Faith obliging all the Apostles under pain of Damnation to make a leg to St. Peter 241 26 The Doctors wise appointment of time and place for his Duel in a Wilderness and a daâ—k night 246 27 A magnanimous piece of docible humility in Dr. H. and his Church 251 28 How the world must needs look upon Dr. Hammond as another St. Iohn Baptist 254 29 The Doctors Logick proving Protestants no Schismaticks because they have all Noses on their faces 270 30 How Dr Hammonds Church keeps open house for all comers 273 31 The Doctor never meddles with any point but he blunders and destroys all the Reason that ever concerns it 277 32 The Doctors Goliahs sword has no more edg then a Beetle 278 33 Dr. Hammonds artificial incomparable nonsence 286 c. And for digestion a solid Postpast under the slight name of Down-Derry THE Introduction IT bred in me at first some admiration why the Protestant Party who heretofore seem'd still more willing to skirmish in particular Controversies then bid battle to the main Body of the Church or any thing which concern'd her Authority should now Print Books by Pairs in defence of their disunion from her and subducing themselves from her Government Especially at this time when it were more seasonable for the Church of England as they entitle themselves to denounce to those many minute Sects gone out of their Communion the unreasonableness of their Schism then plead the reasonableness of their own and to threaten them with the Spiritual Rod of Excommunication unless they return then cry so loud Not guilty after the lash has been so long upon their Shoulders But the Reason of the latter I mean why their Pens rather decline to endeavor the reducing their own Desertors I conceive is because no colourable pretence can possibly be alleaged by the Protestants why they left us but the very same will hold as firm nay much more for the other Sects why they left them For that we pressed them to believe false Fundamentals Dr. Hammond and his Friends will not say since they acknowledge ours a true Church which is inconsistent with such a lapse They were therefore in their opinion things tolerable which were urged upon them and if not in the same rank yet more deserving the Church should command their observance then Copes or Surplisses or the Book of Common-Prayer the allowance whereof they prest upon their Quondam-Brethren The Reason of the former that is their earnestness at this time to clear themselves from the imputation of Schism I conjecture to be the self-consciousness of feeling at length the smart of their own folly in the present dissipation of their Church proceeding from their leaving that Body in which alone is found the healthful vigor of Peace-maintaining Discipline the want of which causes all their distractions Yet not willing to acknowledge an inveterate Error they seek to cover the deformity of their breach with the veil of innocency that that which evidently causes their misfortune may at least seem not to have been their fault And indeed this is the last game they have to play for after their coy conceit of an Invisible Church was unmasked and found plainly to be nothing but a blinde Chimera and less then a Conventicle After that by consequence a visible Church was found necessary to perpetuate a line of Successive Governors without obedience to which they saw by dear experience all Order would be level'd into Anarchy After the consideration of this had oblig'd them to grant that to raise a Schism or to subtract ones self from Obedience to those Governors was in a high manner destructive to Gods Church and therefore a sin deserving the deepest damnation in the abetters and maintainers of it as also in their voluntary adherents Lastly since it was most manifestly acknowledged on all sides That our Church was that Body of Christianity in whose Bowels their Predecessors the first Reformers were bred with whom onely and no other community in the world before the Rupture was made they communicated and from which Body by little and little they became and now are totally disunited they saw plainly and Dr. Hammond will not stick to grant it That no Sacrifice remained to expiate that hainous sin of Schism in the present Protestants but to wipe off the Aspersion from themselves and lay the occasion of the breach at the doors of the Catholick Church This is the scope as far as I understand of Dr. Hammonds Book at which I aym this Answer Only solicitous that he was so tedious in things acknowledged by both parties or which little or nothing concern'd the main point in question as to make up three parts of his Books of these trifles And of the very hinge of the Controversie which is When and why the Schism began to say so little and so weakly that being the chief knot to be untied in this difficulty But since the Doctor will have it otherwise I must be content in most of the Book to Answer meer words that is to fight with the air at least when any thing occurs which may seem to have some mixture of a solider element I shall allow it such a reflexion as I conceive in Reason it may deserve I am his Friend and will goe along with him hand in hand through his whole Book Not that the solidness of the Treatise it self requires so exact a proceeding but the weakness of less-understanding Readers who suspect frivolous things that bear a bulk and a specious shew of Words to be important unless the Answerer either out-word them or manifest them plainly to be impertinent of which as the former is far from my intent so the later must for the reason alledged be a part of my present Task and consequently I hope a satisfactory Plea for my seeming unnecessary tediousness to the more judicious Reader SCHISM DISARM'D THE FIRST PART Containing an Answer to the four first CHAPTERS SECT 1. Notes upon Dr. Hammonds first Chapter of the Danger and Sin of Schism HIS first Chapter is most of it a good Sermonlike preparative to his ensuing Theme Who
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
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
and contradistinct Jurisdictions and all this meerly out of malice forsooth against the Pope to cut short his Authority as he is Successor of St. Peter These are the Evidences dear Countrymen your Doctors bring you to secure your Souls from the most dangerous sin of Schism SECT 9. Some Consequences out of the Doctors former Grounds and his further Process in Evidencing YEt let us see at least what work the Doctor will make of it if we let him alone to run blindly forwards upon his own grounds He will have all the Apostles to have several Provinces limiting their jurisdictions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Doctor misfortunately called them which must be peculiar to each and exclusive of one anothers right else this preparative ground will make nothing to the Doctor 's purpose Consequently to this foundation laid in the fifth Paragraph he begins the sixth thus If the Circumcision or Iewish Christians were peculiarly St. Peters Province and Section seven the Gentile Christians peculiarly St. Pauls c. Now if this Doctor will stand to these grounds thus laid I would gladly ask What becomes of the rest of the Apostles Must they stand by and look on while St. Paul converts all the Gentiles and St. Peter all the Iews You dare not say That they were subordinate to St. Peter and St. Paul that would endanger a kinde of primacy in jurisdiction Will you say then they onely help◠them That sounds dangerously still and intimates some principality in the others allowing them no jurisdiction at all but as far as the others please to accept of their aid You must say then that these Provinces of St. Peter and St. Paul were promiscuously and indifferently given to the rest But the main Pillars of your Evidences I mean your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you say all the Apostles had and which apply'd to St. Peter and St. Paul you will have to signifie peculiar and exclusively-proper Provinces will not bear apply'd to the rest of the Apostles the sence of a promiscuous authority It onely remains then that they have no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is no exclusive jurisdiction or peculiar Province at all and therefore nothing at all to do Thus this courteous Doctor hath by his acute way of reasoning infinitely obliged the rest of the Apostles in freeing them from the hard and laborious task their Master enjoyn'd them and getting them all leave to play Nor hath he less obliged the Pope if it proceeded from good-will in him and not from malice and ignorance for indistributing between St. Peter and St. Paul the Diocess of the whole world he hath at unawares confirm'd the Pope their Successor to be the Universal Pastor of the whole Christian world since it is most certain and by the Doctor acknowledged That the Bishops of Rome beginning with Clemens succeeded them both in that Chair and See But is it not a pretty thing that in his Section six contrary to the grounds he had laid himself and having no other reason but his own conjecture he cramps the vast jurisdiction of that Bishop Apostle and our Saviours large Commission of Euntes in universum mundum praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae Going into the whole world Preach the Gospel to every creature given to each Apostle into those few pitiful Parishes of the Jews of the dispersion And yet afterwards repenting he had granted him so much he balks his former too liberal donation to St. Peter of the Lydian Asia and bestows it on St. Iohn But me thinks I hear the Doctors Evidences call aloud upon us to lend them a due consideration which therefore especially the world being now adays so scant of demonstrations it were an infinite wrong to the advancement of Sciences carelesly to omit And first he evidences That St. Peter had no Primacy at Ierusalem where St. Iames sate or as he terms it Singular Supremacy By which expression if he would say St. Peter was not particular Bishop of that place it needs no evidencing But if he intends such a Primacy as is pretended St. Peter had what means the word Singular or how does the Doctor so quite take off all pretensions of St. Peter to such a Supremacy as he brags pag. 73 Because forsooth not Peter alone but James and John entrusted that charge to him What a miserable Doctor is this who makes account Saint Peter could not be chiefer in Authority than the rest of the Apostles unless he did all things alone by himself And how can it invalidate St. Peters greater Authority that he took other two with him since it is well known an Archbishop going to consecrate a Bishop takes two other Bishops with him and yet it follows not hence that an Archbishop hath no higher degree of Authority than the Bishops O but he findes St. Iames named before St. Peter Gal. 2. 9. and that doubtless he fancies to be an invincible Evidence not considering that if that argument were allow'd any weight his cause were lost since in most if not all other places in the Scripture St. Peter is constantly named first of all the Apostles Lastly he tells us that St. Iames had the Principal place in the Council of Jerusalem where St. Peter is present and ACCORDINGLY gives the sentence Acts 15 19. upon which the Rescript is grounded Where first that St. Iames had the principal place is a pitiful guessing Assertion of his own without the least pretence of a Testimony and yet he puts the word Principal in other letters as a main business Next whereas he alleages that St. Iames gave the Sentence and then quotes Acts 15. 19. I finde onely that St. Iames after he had produced his Reasons sayes Wherefore my sentence is c. But the Doctor turns my sentence which can onely signifie his opinion or judgment in the matter into the sentence which sounds a conclusive definition and decision of a business under debate No wiser nor honester is his next Assertion that the Rescript is grounded upon St. Iames his sentence in particular citing for it Ver. 22. of the same Chapter but there is nothing there particularizing St. Iames but onely that Then to wit after St. Peter St. Paul Barnabas and St. Iames had spoken it seemed good to the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church c. And upon what grounds can this demonstrative Doctor affirm That the Rescript was grounded particularly upon St. Iames his sentence and thence deduce his priority of dignity when as it is manifest to any one that shall read the Chapter that St. Peters sentence was the same with St. Iames in the main matter controverted both concurring that the Gentiles should be freed from the grievous burthen of Circumcision And although the abstaining from Fornication things strangled and blood be found in St. Iames his sentence onely yet how can this argue a
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
Jurisdictions but also to set them together by the ears as if they were jealous that their fellow Apostles like usurping competitors would intrude into their right and therefore give express charge to debar their ambition from putting their Sicklâ— into another mans Harvest Good Mr. Hammond let us have no more of these insincere dealings Let the restrictive and exclusive words which onely make for your purpose be the witnesses not yours at least put them down with that distinction as may easily be discerned and do not after a company of your own expressions mainly prejudicial to the Controversie immediately cite a place of Sacred Writ without producing the words and so gull the Reader to to believe That all which went before is perfect and pure Scripture Whereas indeed scarce so much as a blank Monosyllable is found in the Testimony to countenance your alleaging it But this is your solemn method all over your Book His next Argument is that St. Paul gave Commission to Timothy without St. Peter And who doubts but that each Apostle might by his own single power delegate and constitute whom he pleased and where he pleased in any place of the world I perceive by this whole Chapter that the Doctor understands not the question or at least could not have made a Book without counterfeiting not to understand it We voluntarily yeeld him that each Apostle had an Apostolical Commission over the whole world and yet fear no prejudice should hence arise to St. Peters Primacy amongst the rest of the Apostles Had Master Hammond known this it might have saved him all that pitiful puzzle in making good his first Evidence That St. Peter was over the Iews onely by patching those old garments of ancient Testimonies with the new peeces of his self-woven Additions This Concession of ours and mistake of his shews the next Paragraph which harps upon the same string to wit That St. Paul constituted Titus Primate in Creet to be nothing to the purpose And I observe That the Doctor to give him his due hath very good luck in this That he proves those things pretty plainly which none ever denied After this he tells us That Simeon Metaphrastes affirms St. Peter to have been in Britanny sometime and baptized many into the Faith of Christ and constituted Churches ordaining Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the twelfth year of Nero. How now Doctor what will become of your excluding St. Peter from any Authority over the Gentiles if this Testimony be true were not all the ancient Britains at that time Heathens or Gentiles Alas no we and all antiquity were mistaken the Doctor tells us That in all reason it must be extended no farther then St. Peters line as he was Apostle of the Circumcision ID EST saith he to the Iews which might at that time â—e dispersed here So as though the story were true yet the Doctor hath ever a help at maw and rather then St. Peter shall touch a Gentile he will fancy strongly that there were I cannot tell how many Diocesses of Iews in England since there must be several Diocesses where there are several Bishops for St. Peter to convert and govern So that Britain must swarm with Jews Which might have been saith this evidencing Doctor dispersed there and this without any authority or likelihood but onely because Master Hammond and his ID ESTS say it In the last place the Doctor concludes out of his former laid grounds that is out of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudas his going to Hell out of his own ID ESTS WE KNOW IT IS MANIFEST WE MAKE NO QUESTION out of his clasping together very unlike and disaccording Testimonies to his own voluntary Assertions with the Hooks and Eyes of SO and ACCORDINGLY but most of all out of the Papers of his own Additions pin'd before and behinde the too-bashful proofs Out of these grounds I say without so much as one word in any Testimony either out of Scripture Fathers or History restraining the Commission of St. Peter to the Iews onely he concludes That that Apostle could not be Universal Pastor of the Church This done he hooks in with another ACCORDINGLY a Testimony of St. Prospers which calls them Hereticks who depart from the Communion of Christ and his Apostles in the plural says the Doctor and then reckons up promiscuously such and such Apostles founding such and such Churches What follows hence against St. Peters authority This Testimony seems also something aenigmatical and requires Lynxe's eyes or the Doctors far-seeing and all-penetrating Optick to look through the thick rinde of it which he willingly lends you in these words Where as the Church had the several Apostles for their Founders and those Independent one from the other so the unity from which Hereticks and Schismaticks are said to depart IS SAID to have been founded EQUALLY in each of them in John James and Andrew as well as in St. Peter The word where and is said would almost perswade the Reader that all that follows is in the Testimony but nothing is there or any where else That the Apostles were independent of each other nor that this unity was founded equally in each of them nor in the rest as well as St. Peter But all these his Doctorship huddles together of his own head All the shadow of proof one can have a glimpse of from this place is That the Apostles are here named promiscuously and without distinction and that therefore all were equal Which as it is onely a Negative and non-concluding Argument to say That no distinction is here mentioned therefore there was none so were the Conclusion admitted as Consequent it makes as much against Christ as against St. Peter For he is also named joyntly with his Apostles as those whose joynt-communion Hereticks leave So as if the mentioning of several persons indifferently together without distinction of superiority argue an equality in their Authorities the Doctors Logick may with the same reason infer That Christ and his Apostles were independent of one another that the unity from which Schismaticks depart is founded EQUALLY in them in John James Andrew AS WELL as Christ c. And this may serve for a sample of the Doctors solidness in reasoning Yet it is some sign of wit if one can do himself no good at least to do himself no hurt but the Doctor by this very Testimony which made nothing at all for him has most expresly undone all his former work even beyond the help of an ID EST that is beyond all hopes of remedy For whereas he had bent all his endeavors to prove that some Apostles had the Iews onely for their Province and had more especially insisted for nine whole Paragraphs together in limiting St. Peters authority to the Iews no body knows where as likewise St. Iames his to the Iews in Iudea Section six and St. Iohns to the Iews of Asia Section fourteen This Testimony by himself here alleaged
expresly manifests a jurisdiction over the Gentiles in all the before-limited Apostles nay even in all the rest The words are these as himself cites them In ipsâ Ierusalem Jacobus Joannes apud Ephesum Andraeas caeteri per totam Asiam Petrus Paulus Apostoli in urbe Româ GENTIUM ECCLESIAM pacatam unamque posteris tradentes ex Dominica pactione sacrârunt James in Ierusalem John at Ephesus Andrew and the rest of the Apostles throughout all Asia Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the GENTILES c. Where though the Doctor would blinde the Reader with Englishing GENTIUM ECCLESIAM The Church of the Nations yet it is most notorious That that word in the plural denotes particularly the Gentiles in opposition and contradistinction to the Jews as is evident Matth. 10. 5. In viam Gentium ne abieritis c. Go not into the way of the Gentiles but rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel The same is manifest Matth. 1. 4 15. 6. 32. 10. 18. 12. 21. Mark 10. 33. Luke 2. 32. Acts 1. 4 25. 11. 1. and in almost innumerable other places both in the Old and New Testament Thus the Doctor by this his strongest Testimony which he had laid up in store to conclude with a plaudite his foregoing proofs hath quite invalidated all the rest and so ha◠brought his EVIDENCES at length to a fair market which as before they were shewn to be but feeble props to support his partition-wall of Schism which he is about repairing and daubing or playstering over so now by an unluckily-lavish Testimony of St. Prospers which told more then he would have had it he hath made clean-work and quite razed down his former crazy tottering structure and that from the very foundation ID ESTS and all SECT 13. Doctor Hammonds second General Evidence against St. Peters Supremacy from the Donation of the Keys found to be obscurer then the former THe second quarrel the Doctor hath against St. Peter which he calls his second Evidence is That no power of the Keys was given especially to St. Peter and therefore no Supremacy But before we come to scan the Doctors pretended Evidences it were not amiss to advertise the Reader first what an Evidence is that this notion being set as it were in the confines and mid-way between the past and following proofs he may at once and with a readier glance of his judgment examine the strength and validity both of those the Doctor hath already produced and those he shall produce for the future An EVIDENCE therefore is that which is so clear and manifest a representation of a thing to the eye of Reason as unless we should with a wilful blindness shut those discerning powers it is impossible not to see it This clear and undeniable manifestation in Arguments drawn from Reason must be both of the verity of the promises in themselves and also of the necessary and immediate sequel of the Conclusion out of the Premises thus evidenced and if Evidence in either of these be wanting then that Argument cannot in true Reason be styled an EVIDENCE But now a proof from Authority is then call'd an Evidence when both the Testimony it self is authentick beyond dispute and also the words alleaged so directly expressing the thing to be proved that they need no Additions nor Explications to bring them home to the matter but are of themselves full ample and clear nor possible without manifest wresting to bear any other interpretation and in a word such as the alleager himself were he to express his own thoughts in the present Controversie would make choice of to use This presupposed as a certain rule as no man of Reason can or will deny it both to judge the Doctors former Evidences by and also these in question we will now fall to examine them But first we charge the Doctor with prevaricating against his pretended promise For whereas he begins as bearing us in hand he would bring Evidence that St. Peter had not the Keys given to him in particular he brings not one express proof for the Negative but goes about onely to solve our Testimonies for the Affirmative which is not to produce Evidences of his own but to endeavor an answer to our strong Allegations for it And this is a quite different thing for he who undertakes to Evidence sustains the part of the Opponent but he who strives to evade anothers objected Testimonies manages the part of the Defendant whose offices as appears are opposite and contradistinct Neither indeed is this to bring Evidence but rather Obscurity for though he should obtain his purpose he can onely shew by this means that such or such Arguments do not conclude but not that the thing it self is untrue the evidence of which must depend on the strength of the grounds and goodness of the deductions out of which and by which the contrary is inferred Secondly We charge him with a palpable injuriousness in making the answering our Testimonies out of Scripture the sum of his first proofs and yet omitting our chiefest strongest and most important place of all Iohn 21. 15 16 17. Thirdly We charge him with manifest calumniating in saying We pretend this Donation of the Keys as a peculiarity and inclosure of St. Peter and impugning it accordingly whereas he cannot be ignorant that the Catholick Church holds no such thing but that each Apostle enjoyed an Universal Commission of Jurisdiction and Power to binde and loose which yet debars not St. Peter from being the Head of them and having an especial Authority or Primacy These things premised to shew the Doctors false manner of proceeding we buckle close to the Question The first place which the Doctor cites as alleaged by us for the particular Donation of the Keyes to St. Peter in particular is Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on Earth shall be bound in Heaven Which the Doctor acknowledges a promise to St. Peter yet thinks to defeat it with other two places Iohn 20. 21. and Matth. 28. 19. where they are delivered in common and in the plural to them all Indeed if we pretended out of the former Testimony a peculiarity and inclosure of St. Peter so that he onely and not the others had power to binde and loose then the Doctor had by the following places extending it to all concluded strongly against us But we never pretended any such thing so that the Doctors own calumny is the onely ground of inferring his Conclusion and solving the objected Testimony All therefore that we intend to deduce out of this place in St. Matthew is That whether those words be the Instrument of Christs Donation as the Doctor calls it or no yet something was said to St. Peter in particular and by name which was not said to any other Apostle in particular and by name as is most
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
deny but sometimes to be subject for Ordination was sign of subjection but not always The Bishop of Ostia hath the priviledge to consecrate the Pope yet the Pope is not to be his subject The Council of Sardica ordains That the next Province shall give Bishops to a Province that wants yet makes not that Province subject to it The Patriarch of Alexandria gave the Indians Bishops yet claimed no jurisdiction over them and consecrated the Patriarch of Constantinople yet was not Constantinople in his Territories Therefore this is no rule of Subjection and if it were the Doctor must say this Primate was subject to his own Suffragans Neither did ever Popes or Patriarchs in ancient times demand the Ordination of all the Bishops in their Patriarchates nor does the Pope at this day demand it in other Patriarchates though he claim jurisdiction over them But now who can tell us what the Doctor means when he says the Emperor did all this onely by making it a Primates or chief Metropolitans See and that Carthages being the prime Metropolis of Africk is expressed by having the same priviledges with Prima Iustiniana Can any man think he intendeth other then to mock his Auditory For as far as I understand these words signifie that the Emperor said onely Be thou a chief Metropolis and in so saying gave all these Priviledges Whereas all the Doctors labor hitherto and the Texts by him cited wherein every priviledge is set down so particularly make it manifest there were none or not eminent examples of any such Cities or Bishopricks and therefore so many particularities were necessary to be expressed and it be made an example to others Yet upon this relieth the Doctors main evidence and demonstration Though if you will believe him The conclusion of it self is most certain and might otherwise be testified by innumerable Evidences which we ought to suppose the Doctor omits for brevities sake and contents himself with this riff-raff and his Readers with bold promises and solemn affirmations In his tenth Section immediately following he draws out of his so strong discourse a consequence able to make any sensible man understand the former discourses were all vain and wicked For says he If from the Apostles time there hath been an independent power vested in each Primate or chief Metropolitan then how can it be necessary to the being of a Member of the Catholick Church to be subject to that one Primate Worthy Doctor your inference is very strong and good But I pray consider what is the consequent Surely this If there be no Catholick Church the obedience to the Pope is not necessary to be a member of it A very learned conclusion and worthy of so long a discourse to introduce it yet see whether it be yours or no. You say every chief Metropolitan was independent from all others they made therefore so many absolute Churches therefore made not any one Church Where then is the Catholick Church of which we ought to be members Many houses to be one house is as fairly contradictory as many men or horses to be one horse and so of many Churches to be one Church A Church saith St. Cyprian is a people united to their Bishop If then there be a Catholick Church there must be a Catholick Bishop and taking away the obedience to one Bishop you cannot save one Church I know you can talk like a Saint That Christ is the Head in which all Churches are united But the Church is a Government upon Earth and as an Army with its General or a Commonwealth with its chief Magistrate in Heaven were no Army nor Commonwealth So without subjection to a visible supreme Pastor there will be no Church on Earth left us whereof we ought to be Members which is the true Protestant Tenet whatsoever they may shuffle in words an art wherein they are the most eminent of all Modern Hereticks Therefore he had reason to enlarge himself no farther but conclude with the Authority of his Convocation An. 1537. To which I confess my self unable to answer for it is a pregnant and unavoidable Testimony Onely I may remember our old English Proverb Ask my fellow whether I am a Thief or ask Caiphas whether Pilates sentence against our Saviour was not just You know it was a Convocation of Bishops who for fear renounced their Oaths taken in their Consecration and therefore men of no credit upon their pure words in this case Now their Arguments are no other then what are already discussed that is meer Cobwebs woven out of a tainted heart Besides those who supervived that wicked King for the most part with hearty penance washed away that crime and with their tears blotted out as far as in them lay the black Indentures of that dismal Contract SECT 3. A Discovery of Dr. Hammonds Fundamental Error which runs through this Chapter and his ingratitude for our Countreys Conversion THe Doctor proceeding in his own mistaking method which is to produce faintly and then impugn our Pleas in stead of pleading for himself who stands accused of Schism entitles his sixth Chapter THEIR THIRD PLEA FROM THE BISHOP OF ROMES HAVING PLANTED CHRISTIANITY AMONG US As if we pretended the Conversion of this Nation to have been the reason why the Pope challenged here the Supremacy or That his being Head of the Universal Church depended upon his private Apostleship performed towards this Nation This is the ground of all his ensuing Chapter which being absolutely false and forged upon us it had been sufficient to have past it over with this civil reproof Doctor you mistake For what Catholick Author ever affirmed the Pope is beholden to his Ancestors care in bringing England to Christs Faith for his supreme jurisdiction there or that his title of Primacy had not been equal in this Countrey in case it had hapned Constantinople or Alexandria had sent to convert it We will therefore free the Doctor from any obligation of Subjection to the Popes Primacy which he causlesly fears may come by this title so he will acquit himself and the Church of England of another which lies heavy on them and makes up the full measure of their Schism unless they retract it For if greatest benefits draw on greatest engagements and no benefit be so great as that which rescues us from the Devils tyranny the the bonds of Infidelity and brings us by enlarging our hearts by Faith into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God Sure no Obligation can be conceived so indispensably-binding as that which is due to those who were Authors to us of so inestimable a good This consideration should make the enjoyers of that benefit while they were sons to such a Mother more humble and obedient in an especial manner and by consequence in an high measure aggravate the horrid sin of Schism in not onely rebelliously but most ingratefully abandoning the communion of so tenderly beneficial a Parent This should make them after the breach made
Church Where first I would ask the Doctor in which of these words he places most force in Their Consecration by their own Suffragans and by no other What difficulty in this As if the Pope could not be Head of the Church but he must needs consecrate all the Bishops in the World yet more then once the Doctor hath bob'd us with this Or is it in these words Nullâ penitus c. No profession c As little follows hence for the custom of making a profession or exhibiting subjection to the See of Rome when the Bishops were consecrated exprest in those words facere subjectionem was not then in use and though it were not now it would not at all prejudice the amplitude of the Popes Jurisdiction as Head of the Church Besides the words being Alteri Ecclesiae To another Church not specifying Rome in particular it affords nothing express for the Doctors purpose but may well bear the interpretation of the Bishop of St. Davids being independent of any within that Continent or as before was said of Cyprus of any private Patriarch With which as is evident may well consist a subjection to the Pope as the Churches chief and Universal Pastor To what follows in the fifth Section of the Abbot of Bangors answer who flatly denied subjection to the Pope of Rome First we reply It matters not much what the old Abbot said for every one who hath read those Histories knows the ill-will of the Britains was so extreme against the Saxons at St. Austins coming thâ— apprehension of their tyrannous usurping their Country and driving them out of their own being then â—lagrant and fresh in their memories That they refused to joyn with St Austin for the salvation of their Souls And they might probably be afraid lest admitting and coming under Saint Augustins Jurisdiction they might open a gap for the further encroachment of their late cruel persecutors Neither was it hard to imagin seeing the Britains ever since Aetius came to assist them by reason of the turmoils of the Empire and several incursions of barbarous Nations had little or no commerce with Rome A remote Abbot whose office is to look to his own private Monastery should be ignorant of what was due to the chief Pastor of the Church especially other as great errors being crept in among that Nation But what 's all this to us unless the Doctor can prove that whereas the whole Christian world held the then Pope Gregory the Great Head of the Church as appears by his Epistles to all Churches This Abbot did well in denying that Authority which all else granted and submitted to or that this Abbot communicated with them who admitted and acknowledged it For we do not undertake to defend that there could not be at any time two three or more persons who either out of disgust ambition interest or ignorance might speak or act against the Popes Authority but that it was the profession of the then Catholick Church The words therefore of this Abbot can make nothing against us unless the Doctor will undertake to vindicate him from ignorance and interest and that out of settled and imprejudiced Reason he in so saying pronounced the sence of the whole Catholick Church Yet I have not done with this story of the Abbot thus I alleage moreover that it is either absolutely faâ—ulous or else both all ancient Histories and which is more Doctor Hammond himself is mistaken and therefore however it may possibly be true yet can claim no credit if it be once taken in a lie It makes the Abbot in the close of his blunt Speech affirm Nos sumus c. We are under the rule of the Bishop of Caerlegion upon Usk who is to overlook and govern us under God Whereas it is manifest there was no such Bishoprick at that time it being translated in King Arthurs days which was fifty years before this from Caerusk to St. Davids as the Doctor himself grants in the foregoing Paragraph But for a more full and perfect answer to this upstart instance of that ancient Nation if what I have said suffice not I desire the Readers perusal of the ingenuous and solid Appendix to that excellent Manual of Controversies lately composed by the Learned H. T. where I believe he will finde this new piece of Antiquity irrecoverably confuted What follows in the sixth Paragraph is onely a conclusion out of what he hath said That the whole Iland is not Schismatical because St. Augustine converted not the whole Where first he onely proves the Welshmen no Schismaticks but still leaves himself and his Fellow-Englishmen whom he ought to have cleared first in the suds Nay though the Britains were not then Schismaticks upon that account not being converted by St. Augustine yet now being subjected to the English Bishops and incorporated into their Church if this Church be proved Schismatical The Welshmen who are Sons Subjects depending on and a part of her must needs incur the same censure Besides his premises being all invalidated and his grounds wrongly laid his conclusion must needs be weak and ruinous For we do not accuse him of the substance of Schism for refusing obedience to the Pope as his Successor who sent to convert England but as Successor to him who had the Primacy by the Donation of Christs own mouth However the former may render the rupture more enormous seeing that part of Christs Seamless-coat was close knit to the whole by such a near and firm obligation SECT 4. His continuance of the same Fundamental Error and some mistaking Proofs That Kings can erect Patriarchates BY this time the Doctor through Gods assistance and his Readers Christian patience is come to the second part of his Text which is that even this part of the Iland which was converted by St. Austin cannot entitle the Pope to Supremacy over them Where to omit that his whole grounds are erroneous as I have before manifested in supposing that to be our Plea sor the Popes Primacy let us see at least how consequently he handles it To prove his position he tells us The Nations converted by St. Paul were not to be ever subject to that Chair where St. Paul sate Good Mr. Doctor inform us what you intend by the Chair where Saint Paul sate Whether in the Church of Antioch or Rome or the like say you But first it is meerly a fiction that St. Paul ever sate in any Chair or was fixt Bishop in any place but at Rome onely with St. Peter and to demand whether all Countreys converted by him ought to be subject to his Successor there that is to the Pope who succeeded both him and St. Peter is onely in another phrase to ask over again the Question of the whole Book and is the same as if he should ask whether the Pope be Head of the Church Next you tell us That Timothy and Titus were supreme in their Provinces and independent from any
other See This indeed the Doctor says and we must believe him though he brings not a word of proof for it which the second part of his Assertion concerning their independency did necessarily require onely he says the contrary hath no degree of truth in it which he makes account will carry the business without bringing the least degree of probability for it As for the first part I would ask the Doctor whether St. Paul were supreme over them in his life time or no if he were as I suppose both his Epistles to them and the Doctors former large Testimony from the monosyllable COME will manifest then their being supreme in their own Provinces consisting still with the superiority of St. Paul may for any thing deducible from that reason alone admit the Supremacy of the Head of the Church and their subjection to him And the obligation lies yet upon the Doctor to prove positively That Timothy and Titus were totally exempt from St. Peters Jurisdiction for which Negative proofs are insufficient or indeed for any thing else Yet the Doctors Quiver is full of such blunt shafts and it is an evidence with him to argue thus I have not read it or it is not exprest in this Testimony therefore there is no such thing or therefore it is false As hath been often discovered in the process of this Answer That which follows That it is the nature of Primates or Patriarchs to have no Superior to exercise Iurisdiction over them is onely his own saying and so with like facility denied as asfirmed The Ordination of them by others I have already shewn not to prejudice the Universal Authority of the Head of the Church whose duty it is not to descend to otherwise suppliable actions about particular Members of that Body but from the top of his Primacy to govern and overlook the whole and to be conversant about that more Universal sort of actions reserved and proper to his larger power to the managing of which the short-handed Jurisdictions of particular Patriarchs were not able to reach But now comes the most dangerous blow of all The Doctor did but take his aym all this while now he is fetching the fatal stroke and me thinks I see the Ax even now falling upon the neck of Rome He threatens in his ninth Section To put the whole matter out of controversie And how think you he tells us That Kings could ever erect and translate Patriachates in their own Dominions and therefore that the Kings of England may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury and subject all this Iland to that independent Archbishop or Primate There is a trick now for the Pope which he never dream'd of Where first you see Mr Hammond supposes as granted That the Popes power is but meerly Patriarchal which is the chief if not onely thing in question between us So as his method to put the whole matter out of Controversie is to beg the supposal of the whole matter in Controversie This supposal laid for a ground he repeats again for his first instance those two late answered Acts of Iustinian erecting Iustiniana Prima and Carthage two Arch-Bishopricks or Primacies Though himself acknowledges That Carthage was not originally dignified but onely restored to its Primacy by the said Emperor after the Wandals were driven our which being onely an Act of preserving the former Canons of the Church inviolate every good Christian Emperor and Prince not onely may but also ought to do it and when he does it it is by the power of the Canons of the Church As for the first instance concerning Iustiniana Prima the Dr. thinks perhaps good man that he doth well but put the proof in form and he will I am confident be ashamed of the consequence Iustinian erected Patriarchates saith the History therefore Kings have power to do such acts of themselves infers the Doctor where the force of the illation is the same as if one should say The late Parliament took away Bishops therefore Parliaments have a power to take them away That a particular matter of fact may conclude a self-and-proper power in him that did it you must first prove that power to be originally his own and not delegated to him by another pretending to it himself who in our case is the Pope Next you must prove That if he did it without that delegation yet his action was lawful These if you first prove your instances will come to something otherwise they are senceless and infer less then nothing wanting both the crutches which may enable them to advance forwards to a conclusion Your next instance is That the Emperor Valentinian did by his Rescript constitute Ravenna a Patriarchal Seat where you quote no Author but Anno Dom. 432. And indeed you did well for the Rescript is accounted spurious and to have been foisted into the Monuments of that Church in the time of their Schism Had you told us how invalid the Authority of it was and how not onely for that but for many other things it lay under just exceptions you had been put to the puzzling task of defending its authentickness The exceptions against it are these First It begins in a different manner from the constant tenor of all other Rescripts Next the decree is singular and consequently to be suspected in this that all the other Rescripts made in the reign of the two Emperors though constituted by one of them onely yet were ever authorized by both their names whereas the name and Authority of the Emperor Theodosius is wanting to this Thirdly the Inscription of Imperator Major is new and unheard of all the rest entitling Valentinian Imperator Maximus Fourthly the Bishops of Rhegium Placentia and Brixillis are in the Rescript named as under the Archbishop of Ravenna which is a plain forgery since not long afte◠Pope Leo commanding Eusebius Archbishop of Millain to gather a Provincial Council of the Bishops subject to him those three Bishops met there and subscribed to that Council as appears by the Synodal Epistle yet extant Fiftly The same Rescript which gives them Archiepiscopatum an Arch-Bishoprick which you make a Patriarchate granted them also the use of the Pall which was never accustomed to be given by the Emperors but by the Popes onely as appears by the Epistles of Gregory the Great to the then Archbishops of Ravenna This last rub so puzzled Hieronymus Rubens to smooth it who out of a preposterous love of his Countrey cited this Rescript for its priviledge that he was forced to explicate that Pall to be Caesarum Paludamentum such an Imperial Robe as the Cesars used to wear whereas besides the unlikeliness of the action it is plainly contrary to the Rescript it self which grants them such a Pall Sicut Caeteri sub nostrâ Christianissimâ potestate saepe degentes fruuntur Metropolitae As the rest of the Metropolitans in his Dominions often wore Which every one who hath but tasted
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
in the Doctors judgment Not considering which yet any prudent man would that the whole world whom before they accounted onely Catholick and in which had been hundreds of Kings Queens and Bishops nay perhaps thousands for one of theirs had ever condemned by their contrary beliefe these Votes and Acts to bee scismatical and heretical Besides this King before the breach acknowledging himselfe subject to that Authority in Ecclesiastical matters as all Catholick Kings now doe and as all his Ancestor-Kings ever since Englands conversion had done it must be as I have told you often most apparent evidence and such as greater cannot be imagin'd which may warrant him to exalâ— himselfe above the Popes Authority so long setled in possession and that in those very things in which before he was acknowledgedly under him especially the contrary verdict of such an universality as I have before mention'd with its weight not to be counterpois'd preponderating and mightily prejudicing any pretence of Evidence Again if the thing were evident how happened it that no Christian King till the time of King Henry the eighth and in his time none but he should discern this clear evidence unless perhaps though they say love is blind yet his desire to Anna Bullen did open his eyes in such miraculous manner that he saw by the heavenly light of her bright star-like eyes that the Pope was Antichrist his Authority unlawful and himselfe who was then found under it in Ecclesiastical matters to be indeed above it in case the Popes spiritual power should cross his carnal pleasure To conclude my answer to this Chapter I would ask two things of Mr. Doctor one is in case a King should have broke from the Church and brought in Schism into his Country whether it could probably be perform'd in any other manner than the very method by which their Reformation was introduced The other is whether the Reformation be yet perfectly compleat or rather that Queen Elizabeth swept the Church indeed but left the dust sluttishly behind the door if it be not yet compleat I would gladly know how far this Reformation and Receding from Rome may proceed and what be the certain stints and limits of this rowling Sea which it may not pass For I see no reason in the Doctors grounds but if the secular powers think it convenient they may reform still end wayes as they please nay even if they list deny Christ to be God an acute Socinian will solve very plausibly all the objections out of Scripture and produce allegations which I doubt not he will make far stronger than the Doctor doth his against the Pope nor will there want some obscure testimonies out of Antiquity and express ones from the Arrian Hereticks to evince the Tenet if this then were voted by a King some of his Bishops and a Parliament the Doctor must not disobey and hold Christs Divinity since the thing was done by them to whom as the Doctor sayes rightfull power legally pertain'd They having no infallibility then may happen to vote such a thing and the Doctor having no infallible certainty to the contrary ought not recede from his lawful Superiours so as upon these grounds all religion may be reformed into Atheism and the infallibility of the Church once denied the temporal Power hath no reason to have his rightful authority stinted but at pleasure to make Reformation upon Reformation from generation to generation per omnia saecula saeculorum THE THIRD PART Containing the answers to the foure last Chapters of Dr. Hammonds Schism SECT 1. Doctor Hammonds second sort of Schism and his pretence that they retain the way to preserve Unity in Faith refuted MAster Hammond hath at length finish't his greatest task and done preaching of the first species of Schism as it is an offence against the subordination which Christ hath by himselfe and his Apostles setled in the Church and is now arrived to the second sort as it signifies an offence against the mutual unity peace and charity which Christ left among his Disciples This Schism against Charity for methods sake as he tells us he divides into three species The first is a Schism in the Doctrine or Traditions a departure from the unity of the Faith once delivered to the Saints from the institutions of Christ of the Apostles and of the Universal Church of the first and purest times whether in Government or practises c. Where first this methodical Dr. makes Faith and Charity all one putting his Schism against Faith for the first species of his Schism against mutual Charity Next he ranks also the rejecting Christs Institution of Government under this second species of Schism against Charity which most evidently was the first General Head of Schism hitherto treated of that is of the Offence against Subordination setled by Christ in the Church For Christ could not settle such a subordination in the Church but he must at the same time institute the Government of the Church since there can be neither subordination without Government nor Government without subordination So as now the Schism against Government is come to be one of the Schisms against mutual Charity and to mend the matter comprehended under the same Head with Schism against Faith Was ever such a confusion heard of And yet all this is done saith the Doctor for methods sake But to proceed the second species of his Schism against mutual Charity is an offence against external peace and Communion Ecclesiastical Where I find as much blundering as formerly For these words must either signifie an Offence against Superiors and Governors of the Church and then it is again co-incident both with the first general Head of Schism which dissolves the subordination of the Churches subjects and also with the first particular species of Schism against mutual Charity which according to the Doctors method included a breach from the Government instituted by Christ. Or else they must signifie an Offence against the mutually and equally-due correspondence and Charity which one fellow-member ought to have to another and then it falls to be the same with his third and last species which he calls The want of that Charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian. So that if the jumbling all the Bells together in a confused disorder may be called musical then the Doctors division may be styled methodical After this he subdivides this first species to wit Schism against Faith into A departure from those Rules appointed by Christ for the founding and upholding truth in the Church and into The asserting particular doctrins contrary to Christs and the Apostolical pure Churches establishment But first he cleares himselfe of the former of these by answering our suggestion as he calls it that in casting out the Authority of the Bishop of Rome they have cast off the Head of all Unity To which he tells us the answer is obvious First that the Bishop of Rome was never appointed by
Christ to be the Head of all Christian Unity or that Church to be the conservatory for ever of all Christian Truth more than any other Bishop or Church of the Apostles ordaining or planting Where I find almost as many absurdities hudled together as words For first what signifies the Bp. of Rome was not appointed by Christ Christ was not on earth when St. Peters Successors in the See of Rome sate there and when he ordained St. Peter chief of the Apostles Saint Peter was not yet Bishop of Rome Next if he meanes that St. Peter was not appointed by our Saviour as the Head of Christian Unity St. Hierom's testimony I suppose will be as good as the Doctors word who tels us Inter duodecim c. Amongst the twelve one was chosen that A HEAD being constituted the OCCASION OF SCHISM MIGHT BE TAKEN AWAY Where we see expresly Saint Peter the Popes Predecessor was advanced to be HEAD and this to take away occasion of Schism that is to be HEAD OF CHRISTIAN UNITY Thirdly hence also follows that Christian Unity is conserved by him more than by any other Bishop contrary to the Doctors assertion Fourthly he equivocates in the word Roman Church and takes in it a sence which he knowes we never mean't Our acception of it being of the Universal Church communicating with the Mother Church of Rome his of the private Diocess of Rome it selfe Fifthly it is groundless to affirm even of this private Church of Rome it selfe that she is not the conservatory of Christian Truth more than any other since the Doctor cannot but know the Fathers are of a contrary beleefe holding that the two chief Apostles dying there bequeathed to that Church as a sacred Legacy a greater vigour of Christian Tradition Again Histories and Fathers witnessing so unanimously her firm persistance above the rest objections often urged by our Authors to that purpose the Doctor might at least have afforded us one testimony of the contrary besides his own bare saying Lastly what is the Doctors intent in saying Christ did not appoint the Church of Rome conservatory for ever of all Christian truth What meanes this canting Parenthesis for ever As if Christ might perhaps appoint her to conserve truth for a while but meant after some time to discharge her of that office But this Parenthesis the Doctor reserved for a starting-hole that he might at pleasure cry out she had erred when he had found out some odd testimony which with the help of an id-est-clause might overthrow the Authority of the whole World His second Defence for relinquishing the means to preserve Unity of Faith which we charge them with is this that The way provided by Christ and his Apostles for preserving the Unity of Faith c. is fully acknowledged by their Reformation Which way sayes the Doctor is made up of two Acts of Apostolical Providence First their resolving upon some few heads of efficacy to the planting of Christian life through the world and preaching and depositing them in every Church Secondly their establishing an excellent subordination of Church-officers c. As for the first of these Acts as he calls them of Apostolical Providence if these two Heads he speaks of as thus deposited be indeed sufficient to form a Christian life in order to the attainment of Eternal bliss and that they came down certainly to us by this depository way at first in the Churches and so derived successively age by age Dr. Hammond is suddenly become a Proselyte and a plain Papist For we neither say we have any point of Faith superfluous for the Community of the Faithful nor that those we have came to us by any other meanes than seruando depositum by preserving uncorrupted those necessary doctrines thus deposited But I fear much when the matter comes to scanning Mr. Hammond in this his doctrine neither goes to Church nor stayes at home but halts very lamely in the mid-way He stayes not at home for his Church of England is so far from holding the points deposited by the Apostles in Churches a certain way to preserve Unity of Faith that nothing is more abominable to her than the name of Tradition This appeares by the sixth Article or Canon of Queen Elizabeth's female-headed General Council where the Scripture is made the sole ground of Faith and nothing affirmed as necessary to Salvation but what is built upon it whereas the Doctor here builds points necessary to salvation for sure those few heads of special efficacy to the planting a Christian life can be no lesse upon their preaching and depositing them in the Churches nay more the Unity of Faith that is Faith it self for Faith if not one is none upon this way of depositing Yet for all this he will not goe to Church neither though he stay not at home For ask him are those few Heads all that are necessary he will tell you nâ— yet which be those necessary Heads how many and why no more were thus delivered since this he sayes is A WAY TO PRESERVE UNITY IN FAITH and on the other side he sees what multiplicity is bred by the diverse interpretations of Scripture ask him I say these questions and no particular account can he give you only he had a mind to say somthing in geneneral lest he might be thought to have utterly contemned all Traditions Again these Churches in which were deposited those few Heads of such special eefficacy to plant Christian life were they infallible that is such as we may certainly trust to in their preserving that depositum if they were they might as well be infallible in other necessary points also and so the Doctor hath slipt by good hap into our Rule of Faith and though hoodwink't goes to Church again But if they be not infallible that is connot certainly tell us that they delivered us the right depositum and the same they received then the Drremaines as he is and hath brought nothing to his purpose For since Unity of Faith cannot be preserved without some efficacious meanes of bringing it down to us inerrably true unless this depositing was such as must upon necessity continue for ever which is that we call Infallibility or Indefectibility of the Church the providence of the Apostles had been very sleight and nothing at all to the Doctors purpose that is it had been no efficacious way to preserve Unity of Faith He addes afterwards And all this is asserted and acknowledged by every true son of the Church of England as zealously as is pretended by any Romanist Here again the Doctor seemes to step forwards towards the Church and to draw a great troup of backward unwilling Protestants after him For if they hold as I conceive he meanes by these words the doctrines deposited in the Church as zealously as the Romanists they must hold them as of Faith for so farre our well-grounded zeal carries us and that the depositary is so trusty as
it cannot deceive us Now you see the Doctor is got as farre as the Church-door But when he heares them within the Church talk that a company of men can be Infallible he leaps you back at one jump as far as the Sceptick Schooles of the Heathen Academicks But how could Mr. Hammond imagine this pretence sufficient to acquit him from Scism in renouncing the way to preserue Unity of Faith or to prove that he and his fellowes still fully acknowledged it The way to preserve Unity of Faith held by all the Christian world before their breach was the beleefe of the Churches Infallibility and we think mans wit cannot invent a better for that End Either then this must be the way to preserve Unity in Faith or some other if this you manifestly broke and rejected it as hath been shewn and as the 19th Article of Queen Elizabeths new Creed professedly declares if some other whatever it is it must needs include a fallibility and uncertainty in the Church of the doctrine she teaches Wherefore either evidence to us that a professed and beleeved fallibility can be a better way to preserve Unity in Faith than a beleefe of Infallibility or else grant that renouncing the latter you renounced the best and most efficacious way to conserve such an Unity The second way to preserve Unity in Faith here mentioned by the Doctor as fully and zealously acknowledged by him his fellows is the establishment by our Saviour and his Apostles of an excellent subordination of all inferiour Officers of the Church to the Bishop in every City of the Bishops in every province to their Metropolitans of the Metropolitans in every region or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Patriarchs or Primates allowing also amongst them such a primacy of Order or Dignity a◠might be proportionable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Thus the Doctor In answer to which w◠will examine a while whether this way thu◠laid out be indeed the way to preserve Unity i◠Faith For if notwithstanding this subordination no Priest is bound to beleeve his Bishop nor Bishop his Metropolitan nor Metropolitan his Patriarch how can this conduce to the Unity of Faith But peradventure he will say this subordination in obedience is a great help to keep out errours and then if this be so we must take into consideration how this point relates to Unity of Government as it is a means to conserve Truth the breaking of which Unity is called Schism So the question in that case is reduced to the examine how his subordination provides against Schism Let us admit then that all the world were made up of Churches governed in this Order as the Doctor hath put them I would ask if in the time of the Arian Heresie a Priest had dissented from his Bishop an Arian but yet consented with his Metropolitan had it been schism in so doing The Doctor must answer No for the Metropolitan being of higher Authority than the Bishop the adherence to him would more secure the Priest from schism than the relinquishing the Bishop could endanger him Next if a Bishop dissent from an heretical Metropolitan but consents with a Catholick Patriarch is it yet Schism Surely no since the same reason clears him that cleared the Priest before Again if the Metropolitan dissent from his own Primate or Patriarch but agree with all the rest is it yet schism Certainly no for the collection of all the rest being of greater Authority than any one in particular can by consequence more excuse him than the other can condemn him Hitherto then we have found none of the Doctors Amulets against Shism Let us proceed If a Patriarch dissent from the first from the Doctors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but yet concedes to all the rest is it yet schism The Doctor answers no For in regard he owed the other onely something more of a civil respect as a younger brother does an Elder without any inferiority to him in Command or Jurisdiction it cannot be a Schism Forwards still Suppose some Nation or some Patriarch dissent from a General Council is it yet Schism still the Dr. answers No for in his third Chapter which branch't Schism into all its Species he put no such schism as that against a General Council How then hath Mr. Hammond by this new way provided against Schism if according to this Subordination all the Church may fall together by the eares and all may find lawful excuses to secure them from being Scismaticks since the oeconomy of that distracted Family is so order'd that neither any one in particular nor any in common have any tie to hold them to the rest without which ty of consent in matters of faith this imagin'd subordination can no way be a meanes to preserve Unity of Faith and conquently the Drs. Church government without some stronger obligation to knit up all this Order in an Unity is not an Act of Providence either worthy our Saviour or his Apostles But what is become of the King or Emperour all this while is he no body now who before was the Chief It seemes the Apostles made no reckoning of him in all their Providence It is wonderful Mr. Hammond should so forget himself and proceed so inconsonantly to his own grounds that whereas before the King was Chief Governour Head of the Church Supreme in Ecclesiastical matters over and above both Metropolitans and Patriarchs c. Now in treating the Government of the Church instituted to preserve the Unity of Faith he thinks the Head of the Church whom he had formerly exalted above all that is called HOLY not worth the mentioning Does he think the Unity of such a Head conduces nothing to the preservation of Unity in Faith which yet he grants to a far more inferiour Bishop or accounts he it a small sin for a Patriarch to dissent from so Sacred a Head of his Church and his lawful Superiour nay Supreme in Ecclestastical matters and to whom the rightful power as the Doctor told us in those things legally pertaines Yet Mr. Hammond had good reason to omit it For though he may talk of and advance that doctrine in common so to escape the Supremacy of the Pope for you must conceive that he had rather have even a Bramble rule over their Church than that all o're spreading Cedar the Bishop of Rome yet he declines it as handsomely as he can when he should apply that doctrine to particulars as is seen in our present case For indeed who would not laugh at him if he had told us as he must had he introduced the King that it was the heighth of Schism to dissent in a point of Faith from a Thing which neither the Catholikes nor yet Protestants as you here see acknowledge but a kind of a Lay-Elder an Office which were it not three dayes older might seem borrowed from their dearly beloved brethren the Presbyterians Yet the Doctor is grown kind and allows
that the Scripture grants to S. Peter some Primacy of Order or Dignity If so Mr. Hammond then for any thing you know it may be a Primacy of Iurisdiction And it stands onely upon the certainty of your and our interpretation of Scripture whether it signifie such a Primacy or no. Neither indeed could it be any other if any hold may be taken from your words For S. Peter as you grant and as the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Simon the first of the Apostles plainly evidence had some kind of Primacy then given him and if it were then given him he then had it that is he had it in our Saviours life time but you told us before that S. Iohn had the dignity of place which is the same with Primacy of Order before all others in Christs life time even before S. Peter himself The Primacy then which S. Peter had in Christs life time must be some other Primacy and what Primacy could this be but the Primacy of Iurisdiction Again if by this Primacy he allows S. Peter he means such a precedency as hath any effect or efficacity in the Church according to the nature and degree of a Primacy this is all the substance of the Popes Authority and all that is held by us as of Faith but if he means by Primacy there a meerely inefficacious and dry Presidency and Precedency of Order such as is with us the walking on the right hand or sitting first at a Table without any superiority more than a courteous deference of the rest then the Doctor must imagine our Blessed Saviour had no better thing to do when he made S. Peter the first but to take order for feare the good Apostles should fall to complement who should sit go or speak in the first place and consequently this tenet being an Act of our Saviours register'd in Scripture must bee a courteous point of Faith obliging all the Apostles under pain of damnation to be civil and make a leg to S. Peter In the next paragraph the Doctor is full of feares and jealousies and makes a great doubt that the subjection of this Church to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome will never be likely to tend to the Unity of the whole And why think you so Mr. Doctor doe you not find evidently that the Church before Luther and K Henry renounced the said Authority enjoy'd most perfect peace and tranquillity as those who are under that government doe most blessedly now and on the contrary that after that Authority was rejected nothing has succeeded the rejecters but perpetual turmoiles schisms divisions and subdivisions into Sects and daily mutations in Faith and Government as far as the temporal sword did not hinder them Is not this as evident as all History and even our very eyes can witnesse a truth Lastly doe not the present distractions you now groan under awake you to see that the source of all your misery springs from the leaking Cistern of Schism you have digg'd for your selves Did your Ancestours find so little Unity under the Government of the Roman Catholike Church or have you found such a constant Unity since you left it that you can presume the re-admitting that Government is never likely to tend to Unity Yet you cannot think otherwise unlesse all other Churches of Christians paid that subjection too Do you your obligation why should their backwardnes in their duties make you deny yours Besides whom doe you call Christians all that cry Lord Lord that is professe the name of Christ but deny the onely certain Rule to come to the knowledge of his Law such as were the Gnosticks Carpocratians Donatists Socinians and all the heresies that ever arose since the infancy of the Church or doe you mean by the word Christians onely those qui faciunt voluntatem Patris doe the will of our heavenly Father that is all that hear the Church or have a certain and common Rule to know what Christs Law is if so all these acknowledge subjection to the Head-Bishop of Rome never denied by any but those who at the same time they denied it cast themselves out of the Church refusing to hear her You say the Eastern Churches had not acknowledg'd it ere your departure Admit they had not can their pattern warrant you more than it can warrant the Arrians Nestorians Eutychians c. unless you be certain they did well in it They rejected it indeed and for their reward were by all the Christian world till you falling into the same fault began to call them Brothers and by all your Ancestours justly held and called Schismaticks Yet when they were in their right mood they admitted it as much as any Roman-Catholike as appeares in the Acts of the Florentine Council to which they subscribed nay even when they were disgusted and refused Unity they acknowledged the power of the Bishop of Rome as appeares by a testimony of Gerson cited by your friend Bishop Bramhall against himselfe in his just vindication of the Church of England p. 101. which witnesses that the Greeks departed from the then-Pope with these words Wee acknowledge thy power we cannot satisfie your covetousness live by your selves His second doubt is that the Bishop of Rome is not able to administer that vast Province I wonder how he did of old and why he may not do the same again as well as formerly But the Dr. calls it a politick probleme whether hee can or no and would have it judged by those who are by God entrusted with the Flock Id est saith he by the Princes the nursing Fathers in every Church It is indeed a politick probleme that is a question concerning Government but since it concernes Government Ecclesiastical it falls not under the scanning of temporal Politicians The Christian Common-wealth would be brought to a pretty pass if the Government of Gods Church so long acknowledged as left by Christ and continued in the Church 300. yeares by their own confession ere there were any Christian Princes should anew be call'd into question by humane policy But these two words of Scripture Nursing Fathers make it plain to the Doctor satisfy'd with any thing himself fancies that the Government and Jurisdiction over the Church belongs to Kings as if to nurse cherish and foster were to rule order govern and command or as if Ioseph who was Foster-father to our Saviour was as good as or the same with God Almighty who was his true Father And I wonder where this Doctor ever read that our Saviour entrusted the Government of his Church and Ecclesiastical affaires to any but the Apostles Ecclesiastical persons or that any held Nero the Heathen Emperour to have right and title o be Head of the Church Again if our Saviour left that authority with his Apostles I would gladly know by what new Orders from Christ it came to be transfer'd from their Successors into the hands of secular Princes But the Doctor has
or at least that year was pure again For it cannot be imagin'd the doctrine of that Council was pure but the beleefe of the Faithful in that Age taught by those Pastors which there resided must be pure also Far more consonant then to their grounds is the doctrine of the Puritans denying promiscuously all Antiquity than to pick and cull out at pleasure what serves their turn as doe the Protestants and to like and reject allow and disallow what makes for or against them without giving any evident reason why they put such a difference In vain therefore does the Doctor like a very Saint pretend in behalfe of their Church an unaffected ignorance though they should mistake being conscious to himselfe what pitiful shifts he makes use of in stead of grounds In vain does he hope that this ruliness as he calls it and obedience of theirs will render them approvable to God unless they can render God an approved reason why they will at pleasure hold his sacred Spouse the Church holy in one Age and adulterate in another and shape and fashion Christs seamless coat according to the mode of their ever-changing fancy Lastly most vainly doe they hope this ruliness in holding to the first 300. yeares will lead them into all truth unless they could shew that all the points of Truth between them and us were professedly treated and decided in those times and the decision on their side He ends in a preaching manner with extolling the humble and docible temper of his Church Truly Mr. Doctor it is a wonderful commendation to your Church that she is yet to bee taught Pray when will she be at age to leave going to School when will she be out of her prentice-like tutorage and set up for her selfe to professe truth as a Church should do I thought a Church should have been Columna firmamentum veritatis the Pillar and firm foundation of Truth but yours is like the hinge of a door or a weather-cock docibly turning with every wind of doctrine How doe you think the Puritans or any other Sect should in reason yeeld any Authority to your Church since she professes her selfe yet learning her Faith that is as yet knowes it not If it be such a commendation in your Church to be docible I suppose it is so in others and consequently in the whole Church and then I pâ—ay who must teach her or what greater Professor is there on Earth of the knowledge of Christs Faith to whom the Universal Church may submit her selfe as dociâ—le Perhaps you will say that one particular Church must sisterly and charitably assist and teach another that is though each be ignorant it selfe yet like the blind leading the blind they must all be supposed mutual Mistreâ—ses and consequently all learned But let us examine a little further this docible and humble temper of your youngling Church Is it dâ—ciblenesse or humility think you to forsake a Mistress who had all the qualities which could give â—er Authority and fall to teach your selves new reformed doctrines without any Authority at all Such is the humble dâ—ciblenesse of your Church Is it docibleness to cast off the Authority of 14. General Councils and the consent of Christendome for twelve hundred yeares and rely upon your own judgments to interpret the rest as you list This is the so much brag d on docibleness and humble temper of your Church Parallel to the former or rather far ouâ—vying them though of a contrary strain is that most heroick Act of your docible humility to be willing to hold things concerning your eternal salvation upon the Authority of the four General Councils or the Doctors and Church of the first 300. yeares which Drs. and Councils notwithstanding it is an Article of your Faith that they are fallible And as for the Church of those times that it was fallible your selfe grants for you confesse that the same Church erred in the fourth Age. Now to hold Articles or points of Faith upon that Authority which it is an Article of Faith may deceive me is such a magnanimous piece of docible humility as I dare be bold to say in the Doctors behalfe neither the Apostles nor any Saint in the succeeding Church durst ever own Neither can the present Catholikes whom some who neither understand their own nor Catholike grounds laugh at as blindly humble and obedient to the Church lay claim to such an incomparable degree of humility proper and peculiar to the Protestants onely For we pretend not Faith certain but upon a deemed INFALLIBILITY in the Authority assuring it so as though they may be supposed blameable by you for failing in their grounds that is in believing the Church infallible yet they cannot be condemned for proceeding inconsequently upon those groundâ— for an infallible Authority deserves a firm assent But to stand to the acceptation of matters of Faith which you pretend most certain upon an Authority confessed by your selves uncertain is such a condiscension of humility such a prostrating your proper knowledge as is not onely a blindly-capâ—ivating your Judgment but even an utter renouncing all judgment prudence and common sence not a submitting the reason by a voluntary winking at objections but a quite extinguishing and perfect putting out of the very Eye of reason it selfe and is all one as if a man should say For any thing I know such a one may lye in what he tells mee yet neverthelesse I will strongly perswade my selfe that all hee sayes is most certainely true Yet this humility the Doctor calls here a special mark of the Church of Englands Reformation And surely you have reformed well since you have not only reform'd the Unity you before enjoy'd into distractions the Faith you formerly profest into new-fangled misbeleefes but your former reason and judgment into present folly and fancy What is said of your accepting the four Councils c. may also bee apply'd to your private interpretitions of Scripture which found your Faith which Faith you will have to be certain and firm though the persons Interpretation it is built on be fallible and obnoxious to errour The pious words in your own behalfe with which you close up your Chapter spoken in an Elegiack tone are very moanfully moving words out of a pulpit rhetorical enough for women not rational enough to satisfie any prudent man You professe you would preserve the Unity of the Apostolical Faith and primitive practises as entire as Christs body or garments Good Mr. Hammond leave mocking your Readers and tell us why the Primitive times must needs just end then when the Church began to flourish and the Fathers to write against your doctrine And as for Christs body or garments I see no such great respect in you or your Churches doctrine allow'd towards holy Reliques that I should be willing to trust those sacred pledges to your unhallowed hands from whose rude usage his mystical Body his Church Faith its Rule
alter old ones then you must either grant our Church in the fifteenth age to have been no Church which you dare not affirm for fear of spoiling your own mission or else grant that you were more bound to hold the Ceremonies recommended by her than those which descended from the Primitive times Since our Church could better see what was expedient for her present circumstances than the Primitive could foresee so long before hand what was likely to be convenient for future ages SECT 4. Of Doctor Hammonds charitablenesse in admitting all to his Communion and our pretended Uncharitablenesse for refusing to goe to their Assemblies IN the fifth place the Doctor professes like a good charitable man as hee is that they exclude no Christian from their Communion that will either filially or fraternally embrace it with them No truly to give your Religion its due it is a wonderful civil and courteous profession and admits all the old condemned Heresies into Communion provided they but professe Christ whatever points else they deny it matters not Nay it is sufficient if they call themselves Christians though all the world else calls them Hereticks yet your kind hearted Church cannot but friendly entertain them You keep open house for all commers The doctrine of Oportet haereses esse There must bee heresies is changed by your boon behaviour into It is impossible there should be heresies For whereas the world heretofore understood those to be Hereticks who held the letter of the Scripture and some points of Christianity but deny'd others which were the tenets of the Universal Church at that time you have now quite chang'd the former notion and think none to bee excluded from Communion that is none to be Hereticks that bear the name of a Christian so as though they deny all points of Christs doctrine yet professe Christs name and the outward letter of the Scripture let them come and welcome Anabaptists Brownists Presbyterians Quakers Carpocratians perhaps Arians nay even Simon Magus himselfe all these sew'd together only with the aiery sound of the word Christian will serve for broken-ware pieces to patch up Doctor Hammonds motley Church For since they hold to his grounds that is to professe Christs name and the letter of the Scripture he cannot in any reason admit some and refuse the rest Again the Doctor is willing to admit any that will filially or fraternally embrace communion with them that is all that will be either under them or at least not above them but is loath to admit communion with any that will paternally communicate with them that is be over and govern them No take heed of that as much courtesie as you please but not a dram of humility obedience nor subjection to Superiours These peace-preserving virtues would quite break the neck of Schism and Faction If there bee any such over-powering Authority though never so long setled in possession over the Countrey and acknowledged and beleeved by all Christians in never so many ages to bee of divine institution yet presently the spirit of Schism in the first place endeavours to break asunder the bonds of this paternal communion to pluck it down to the ground and cast it out of the Island You are willing you say to admit all to your Assemblies that acknowledge the foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles You love mightily to talk plausible words in the aire and in general as if you made account your Readers should bee all fooles to search no further than the empty sound of your universal sayings not applying them to the thing in question Good Mr. Doctor tell me what it is to acknowledge the foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles Is it to acknowledge Scripture All heresies in the world fly onely to it and make it their armour-house to oppugn Christ and his Church Arians and Socinians most of all and yet they can deny Christs Godhead So as by this means indeed you will have store of communicants Is it the true sence of the Scripture then truth being one and falshood manifold if their interpretation be different from yours both cannot bee true and consequently both acknowledge not the foundation left by Christ for falsifying his word cannot be that foundation Again if this bee the foundation left by Christ you must have some certain and known Rule to come by the true sence of the Scriptures else you cannot be certainly assured who acknowledge this foundation and so admit rashly to your Communion you know not whom Is it perhaps the true sence of Scripture but restrain'd to fundamentals still the same difficulty remaines unlesse you have some certain Rule to distinguish and sort out the Essentials from points of less importance to talk much of fundamentals and never tell us which are they is but a shuffling trick of a mountebank and very unbecomming a grave Divine Or is this Foundation perhaps the solid sence of Christs law written and planted in the tables of mens hearts by the Apostles and thence by a welllink't chain of Universal Tradition derived to our times If so you must admit onely Catholikes and exclude all the rest since onely they hold this foundation Or rather indeed since you deny this way of bringing down Faith to bee sufficient which Catholikes hold as a certain and infallible Rule it followes that if you will goe conseqently to your own grounds you must not admit them neither since this is not the by-you acknowledged foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles It remaines then that you are willing to admit all those that shall say they have the Foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles and then you cannot doubt but to have the brotherly fellowship of all hereticks and schismaticks in the world that have been are or shall bee since all pretend strongly in general termes to acknowledge that Foundation Nor is hee lesse devoutly charitable in the following words that they earnestly desire to bee admitted to the like freedome of external Communion with all the members of all other Christian Churches as oft as occasion makes us capable of that blessing of the one heart and the one lip This it is to bee so inured to a drowsy sounding vein of preaching Quodlibets till a man hath humm'd and drumm'd away all reason out of his head Speak sence man and let your pretended Charity come clad in Truth or else I must justly suspect it to bee nothing but Pharisaical hypocrisie I hate contradictions though told me in never so pious a tone Was it ever heard that any Catholike deny'd you Communion if you were capable of that blessing of one heart the same interiour beleefe and one lip the same exteriour profession To what purpose then are those seemingly pious words produc'd Leave off paying us with this hollow language empty of sence render your selves capable of that blessing in your actions renounce and repent your disobedience to your so-long-acknowledg'd Superiours Repeal your schismatical ordinances against
Whole by Order and as much depend upon Spiritual Superiours having power to teach and preach Christs Law as the Common-wealth doth on Secular Magistrates to preserve their temporal Lawes and govern according to them without this order the Whole is dissolved the Body is lost the Church is gone Doubtless Mr. Doctor it is not the fault or choice of the present Protestants that they are thus bassled and persecuted which yet you have spent this whole Chapter except onely the first Paragraph to prove so needs no such great and large disproose to manifest that that which is so much against mens wills should bee their Choice and Crime Yet wee may justly impute your Churches ruine to the sandiness of her foundation which being the Authority of the secular Governors must render her liable to change as often as the unconstant wind of temporal circumstances shall alter the former Government or as oft as the former Government yet remaining shall see it necessary for the present peace or conveniences of the Common wealth to introduce or admit the more prevailing sway of a new Religion But I foresee that the Doctor to avoid this objection will cling in with us and call the Antichristian and Idolatrous Romanists their dear Brethren and tell them they acknowledge their Iurisdiction and Mission to come from them desiring them not to reject them now in their greatest necessity but let them seem to have an Authority deriv'd from the Apostles by their meanes proffering that they in courteons recompence will acknowledge Rome to bee a true Church This indeed is ordinary with them but yet as frivolous still as the former For the Authority which our Church could give you was onely to teach and preach Catholike Doctrine and ordain others to doe the same to govern the Catholike flock and to preserve them in the anciently received Unity of Faith The Authority to doe these could come indeed from us and so if any who pretend to have received Iurisdiction from us continue to execute and govern themselves by that Commission so far they are warranted by the former Authorization but if they went beyond their Commission nay more acted quite contrary to their Commission I wonder what Iurisdiction or Mission they can pretend as derived from us Our question then is of such a power as your Bishops pretend to and exercised that is of bearing the Ensign of a Squadron of the Churches Enemies Preaching an opposite Doctrine to the Church which you pretend to have impower'd you and ordaining others to doe the same Evident it is that the Roman Catholike Church which is the only spiritual power you can think to have any Iurisdiction or Mission from never gave you this Authority wherefore it must come to you from the meer secular Power on this Power therfore is built all the Authority you have to act as Protestants or in order to the Protestant Church and consequently the whole building of your Church was erected onely and solely upon this uncertain and sandy foundation This made Mr. Hooker one of the best and perhaps the most prudent Writer of all that profession affirm of their Church that it was not likely to continue more than fourscore years nor could he judge otherwise seeing it bear evidently the Principles of corruption and mutability in its very constitution to wit the materia prima of a secular Basis which continually exposed it to a mortality as the formes of Government should have their ever-limited period and discovering the professors and Governours of it to bee none of those to whom our Saviour promised his perpetual assistance to the end of the world How much happier then would you be if leaving this fleeting and unbodied shadow you would return and unite your selves to the Catholike Church Which enjoying this promise from our Saviour of an indefectible perpetuity not onely experiences the certain faithfulness of that promise in a large continuance of 1600. yeares but also sees with Evidence perhaps more than scientifical that the walls of this Hierusalem are built upon such strong foundations that the Church and the Authority and Jurisdiction of her Governours can never fail or decay since they rely not on the slippery and weak prop of the temporal power for their Authority but on those who received it from the eternal never-altering Fountain of all power with Commission to delegate and transmit it with an uninterrupted succession to the future Governours of the Church till wee all meet in the Unity of Glory Nor is the means of transmitting this Heavenfounded Jurisdiction to Posterity less certain than is the law of grace written in the hearts of the faithful in indelible characters that inviolable Rule of Faith a Rock too adamantine to be undermin'd by human policy Let then her enemies though even Princes rage as much as they please nay even bandy and conspire together to subdue this free-born Kings Daughter to their prophane yoke her Jurisdiction as it ever hath so will it ever remaine secure and inviolate being independent of them and by reason of the state of Eternity her end and aym of a superiour order to their Authority which was instituted only for the rightly dispencing the transitory goods of this world Your parallel of the Jews suffering under the Zelot's fury or the old Roman yoke which you make account is so evident that the Reader will supercede all necessity of making it up I conceive to aym very little or nothing at your purpose For though they intruded unfit men into the Priestly dignity yet they did not actually neither could they possibly take away the Jurisdiction of the High Priest because this Jurisdiction was not given them by those secular powers but by God himself the contrary of all which happens in your case as has been shewn For the Jurisdiction of your Bishops may be taken away by the same Parliamentary power that set it up That it was not their guilt nor yours neither wee willingly grant and I wonder you could imagine us so unwise as to object that to be your voluntary Crime which you cannot but know we hold to bee your involuntary punishment Your wishes and prayers for peace and communion among all who are called Christians are no less ours and this not in words only but in efficacious endeavours and in several Nations with daily labours and extreamest hazards to reduce the straying flock to their safely-guarded fold Nay this Communion is so vehemently desired and thirsted after by us that we are ready to buy it at any rate except the forfeiture of the Certainty of Faith and its Rule the forfeiture of which is the loss of our own Communion also If Mr. Hammond can perswade himself and his friends to return to this Rule of Faith the Churches Infallibility which onely can unite us in the same stedfast belief of Christs Doctrine and to acknowledg the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the acknowledgment of which consists the constant
pang and sollicitude before they durst open their doors They could neither eat nor sleep in any other security than that which a good Conscience gave them But the cruelst part of all was to defame us of Treason First you make a Law that to acknowledge the Successor of S. Peter had a common superintendency over the Church was Treason and then brand us for Traitors Should a Presbyterian or Independent Power make it Treason to acknowledge Prelacy would you think it reasonable presently to conclude all the older-fashion'd Protestants Traitors Nor can I perswade my selfe I offer any violence to Charity if I plainly and roundly charge you that in all this you proceeded flatly against your Consciences it being impossible you should really judge the bare receiving Orders beyond Sea to be Treason which is abundantly convinc't by your very offer of pardon nay sometimes preferment if hee whom you made the people beleeve was a dangerous and bloody Traitor would but go to Church with you For what Priest dyed for being a Priest but hee might have rescu'd himselfe at the last hour by such submission What Priest was so bad whom you were not ready to entertain with honour if hee would take party with you So unlucky is his Lordship in this Chapter that whatever his intention is he absolves us or at least condemns himselfe if he would be understood as the Letter of his Exceptions sounds he absolutely clears our Religion of a calumny which the Protestants most injuriously charge upon us that our vassalage to the Pope destroyes our subjection to our Prince citing so many instances where Catholikes remaining such have disobey'd the Pope If he on purpose layes his sense to bee ambiguous of which I have some jealousie because hee uses that jugling phrase in effect then hee absolutely proves himselfe a Deceiver In short if he mean honestly he justifies us if otherwise every honest man will condemn him But whatever his inward meaning is the Case open'd will declare it self Christ being to build his spiritual Kingdom upon the Basis not onely of the Roman Monarchy then flourishing but of a multitude of Kingdomes either bred out of the destruction of that or originally independent and distinct from it which in process of time should embrace his Faith saw it necessary to make such a band of Unity betwixt the Churches of which his spiritual Empire was to be integrated that it neither should be offensive to temporal Princes nor yet unprovided of meanes to keep the Church in such amity as to be able to work like the Congregation of Hierusalem which had Cor unum animam unam For this reason he gave the principality among his Apostles to S. Peter and consequently to his Successors among theirs The effect of this Principality was that when publick meetings of Bishops were necessary all emulation who should have recourse to the other was taken away since it was known all were to defer to him meet as and where was most fitting for him Again if any inconvenience fel among Christians there wanted not one who was by office to look to it though in the place where it fell out there were no superior Authority to curb the offenders This one Seat might by the ordinary providence of Almighty God keep a continuance of Succession from S. Peter to the end of the World whereas the vicissitude of humane nature permitted not the like to be done to all the Sees where all the rest of the Apostles had signed their Faith by their precious death Hence 't is the See of Rome is invested with the special priviledge of Mother and Mistress of the Church But not to dive into all or the questionable consequences of this Primacy this onely I intend to insist upon that it is the hinge upon which all the common government and unity in Faith Sacraments Ceremonies and communication of spiritual Fraternity depends which being removed the Church vanishes into a pure Anarchy no one Province or Country having the least obligation to any other to repair to it to obey it to make Meetings and common Ordinances with it So that the whole frame of the Church will be utterly dissolv'd ceasing to be a Church and becomming a ruinous heap of stones precious indeed in themselves but without order shape or connexion By this it clearly followes whatever is the truth of those Questions which our Bishop reckons up to have been disputed between other Christian Countries and the Papacy that as long as this Principality wee speak of is acknowledged so long there is an Unity in the Christian Church all particular Churches being by this subordination perfectly one both with their Head and among themselves This is the bridle our Saviour put in the mouth of his Church to wield it sweetly which way he pleased No dissention in Faith or Discipline nay not any war among Christian Princes could annoy the World if this Authority were duly preserved and governed Many excellent effects we have seen of it and more the world is likely to enjoy when the admirable conveniences of it shall bee unpassionately understood What Christian Prince can chuse but be glad to have an Arbitrator so prudent so pious so disinteressed as a good Pope should be to reconcile differences and to hinder bloodshed either in his own people or between his neighbours And who sees not that the Popes office and condition among those who reverence him is perfectly proper for such an effect beyond the hopes of wisedom that had not known th'exprience of it What a desperate attempt then is it to bite at this bridle and strive to put the whole Christian World in confusion This is your crime in this consists your Schism in this your impiety and wickedness Agreeing then that this is the substance of the Papacy temporal preheminences and wealth being but accidental to it wee shall presently see all those arrows which the Bishop shoots against us fall directly on his own head For if the Papacy stand firm and strong in all those Countries that have resisted the Pope when they conceived hee encroach'd on their ' liberties it is evident notwithstanding all such disputes the Being and Nature of one Church is entirely conserved they all governing themselves in an Unity of Faith and Sacraments and Correspondence like one Body as is visible to any that will but open his eyes and so are Members of one Christian Community Whereas the Reform as they call it has cut off England from all this communication and correspondence and made it no part of any Church greater than it self and by consequence that can pretend to Universality and Catholicism but a headless Synagogue without Brotherhood or Order if joyned with any other it is not in a common head but with the tayles of opposition to the Roman Catholike No more can the several Protestant Churches be allow'd to compose one Body than all the ancient Hereticks did nay than Turks and Iewes and
Christians may be now said to doe since the sole root of unity Protestants can pretend is onely their agreement in certain general Points which most of the old Hereticks profess'd and even Turks and Iewes beleeve some part of the Christian Faith As for the Protestant distinction that all are of one Communion who agree in fundamentals 't is no better than a meer shift til they exhibit a list of such Points and prove them obligingly and satisfactorily to all the rational people of the World that they and they onely are essential to Christian Communion His eighth Chapter would fain be thought to prove the Pope and Court of Rome guilty of Schism First because shee takes upon her to bee Mistress where shee is but Sister to other Churches It is their saying and our denying it till they have proved what they affirm The second Argument is a meeâ— calumny that shee obtrudes new Creeds and unjustly excommuicates those who will not receive them At the third blow hee layes the Axe as he sayes to the root of Schism but if I understand his words it is to his own legs The Papacy sayes â—ee qua talis which hee interprets as it is maintain'd by many Good-night my Lord of London-Derry for certainly your wits are in the dark If you once begin to say as it is maintain'd by many you imply it is not maintain'd by all and therefore not the Papacy qua talis for so Catholikes have not the least difference amongst them If you will dispute against private Opinions cite your Authors and argue against them not the Church whose beleefe is contain'd in the Decrees of Councils and universal consent of Fathers and Doctors His fourth Charge is that the Popes hold themselves to bee Bishops of every particular See which is a more gross and false imputation than any of the rest Other two branches he offers at but confesses them not to be decided in our Church and therefore can make nothing for him His ninth Chapter pretends to solve the Romanists Arguments and first that grand one of Schism which hee maintaines to be so clearly unimputable to Protestants that he sayes they hold Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee doe And truly if by Christians he meanes those who lay claim to the name of Christ I neither deny his answer nor envy him his multitude For Mâ—â—ichees Gnosticks Carpocratians Arians Nestorians Euâ—yâ—hians c. without number all â—surp to themselves the honour of this Title and I most faithfully protest I do not think his Lordship has any solid reason to refuse Communion to the worst of them But if he meanes by Christians those who never changed the doctrine which their Fathers taught them as received from the Apostles so let him shew me one who is not in communion with the Roman Church and I also shall be of that one's Communion The second Argument hee undertakes is That Protestants admit not the Council of Trent To which hee replies it was not General because the Heretical Patriarchs were not called many Bishops were absent too many Italians there fewer Bishops present at the determination of weightiest Points than the King of England could assemble in a moneth What trivial stuff is this Is not a Parliament the General Representative of the Nation unless every Lord though a known and condemn'd Rebel be summon'd or unless every Member that has a right to sit there bee present Who is so impertinent as to quarrel at the generalness of a Parliament if some Court Lords bee admitted to their Voices or if the number of Voters in some Parliaments bee fewer than in others What 's this to the purpose if none that have a true right be excluded Yet these are the grand Exceptions only in some words wherein hee expresses his anger Passion made him quite forget they might possibly be retorted upon his own condition else what a blindness is it to call the Bishops of Italy hungry parasitical Pensioners It seemes my Lord you keep a good Table speak the truth boldly and have great Revenues independent of any As for the instance of the French Churches non-admittance of the Council of Trent your selfe confesses it is there received for matters of doctrine and I confesse that for other Canons the execution of them may be omitted unlesse the true Superiours presse their observance Secondly he sayes it was not free A false and injurious calumny taken out of Sleidan accounted by our part a frank lyar and forger Thirdly he seigns an Objection to himself their breaking from the Patriarchat which already wee have clear'd is not the question and himself though weakly and sillily endeavours to prove cannot stand with the claim of Papal Authority from Christ. After these he descends to consider such of our Arguments as hee is pleas'd to think of lesser importance As first That Protestants have no Clergy because no Priests For the notion of a Priest is to bee a Sacrificer and their Reform renounces all truly called Sacrifice This he hides in obscure and common terms of matter and form and shuffles likewise certain common words in Answer Secondly because their Ministers whom they term Priests were made by no Bishops The Controversie is largely treated by Doctor Champney against Mason Hee answers it with childish and impudent words Father Oldcorn whom he cites was known to be a weak and timorous man who might bee easily surprised I could never hear that any Catholike esteemed judicious was ever admitted to a free perusal of their Registers but know wel that the Contemporaries protested against any lawful Ordination of their first Bishops and were answer'd by silence He sayes they hold no spiritual Jurisdiction from the Crown But the Statutes of the Nation and their own Oaths say the contrary Let him dispute it with the Lawyers The tenth Chapter containes what he expects to be the result of his Book Hee first complaines of hard usage and thinks the very Turk not so cruel as those who now persecute Protestants in England Truly no good man I beleeve wishes his Party harm But mee thinks he might remember they suffer not so much as themselves have done in their Reign against those who in respect of them were Aborigines whose possession was the same that Christian Religion had among us And would to God they could even now be quiet and friendly when they are in eadem damnatione Prelacy as well as Popery being voted damnable Heresie by the late Parliament 'T is true their Religion as consider'd including Episcopacy is cast out of the Land but then how comes Episcopacy to be essential to their Religion Have not the Bishops alwayes profess'd themselves of the same Communion with the Huguenots of France the Zuinglians of Switzerland c. who hold Episcopacy abominable The persons of such Bishops as reside in England and are accus'd of nothing but Episcopacy live free and secure enjoy their whole Estates except what belonged to their Dignity and