refused to subscribe The Act it self not numbred amongst the Acts of the Council till ambition which at first receiving such a check from so grave Authority was modest growing more impudent when the reprehending and curbing power was absent legitimated that bastard-issue and pin'd it to the end of the Council as Dr. Hammond does his own sayings to the end of his Testimonies Yet the Doctor tells us He could vindicate the validity of this Canon but that he means not to go out of his way Is it out of your way Mr. Doctor to vindicate that Testimony to be valid which you object for a strong proof against us and we reject as of insufficient Authority and illegitimate In my poor judgment it lies so directly in your way that you cannot possibly do your cause better service then to clear this point else why did you produce a Testimony lying under a just Exception unless you would stick to it and maintain it It lay in your way it seems to put that large-senc'd monosyllable ALL into the Testimony that was just in your way but to make good your own weak Allegation was quite out of your way Yet you were something excusable from under-propping your Testimony if you had been better employ'd in the mean time but I finde the whole fifth Paragraph in which you wave it from the beginning to the end made up onely of your own sayings and some of those too false upon which as upon grounds you proceed with an unresistable career So as your proofs are perfect Cobwebs both the ground and the work upon it being spun out of your own bowels But instead of vindicating it you first quarrel with us for strange dealing in not admitting any Testimony against us but wherein we have given our own suffrage which you call A method of security beyond all amulets c. Thus the Doctor plausibly indeed if his Readers were fools otherwise nothing can sound more unconsonantly For either the Pope is head of the Church or no If he suppose negatively then he plainly begs the Question which hangs yet in dispute and then upon this supposition I will grant it is not onely strange dealing but injustice usurpation tyranny impiety or whatever he will or else the Pope was and is Head of the Church and then the Doctors words may be objected as well to any Governor or any man living as to the Pope and it is not strange dealling but very good reason That he should refuse to subscribe to an Act endamaging the Canons of the Church it being his duty and obligation to keep them inviolate And if Pope Leo could in reason reject it then when one siding and self-interessed part of the Council had voted it we can with as good reason reject it now when Dr. Hammond alleages it SECT 2. THe Doctors next EVIDENCE that the Pope is not Head of the Church is from a Canon in the Council of Ephesus where saith Mr. Hammond the independency of Cyprus not onely from the Patriarch of Antioch but from all others whomsoever was contested then as from the Apostles times c. Thus the Doctor desirous to make the Reader believe that Cyprus had no kinde of Dependency on any one whomsoever Though the Testimony it self contests no more but that from the Apostles time they could never show That the Bishop of Antioch was there Et ordinaverit vel communicaverit unquam Insulae ordination is gratiam neque alius quisquam that is And ordain'd or conferred the grace of Ordination upon that Iâ—and nor any other The Testimony speaks onely That neither the Patriarch nor any other ordained there the Doctor interprets it That Cyprus was independent on the Patriarch of Antioch or any one whomsoever Which is not ingenuously done for there may be a dependency of subjection to the Jurisdiction of another though they never received from that other their Ordination Thus you see the Doctor seldom brings us an account of any Testimony but less or more he will be sure to enflame the reckoning But the Council exempted Cyprus from the peculiar subjection to a private Patriarch in particular True but is there any thing exprest there That either Cyprus or the Patriarch of Antioch himself were exempted from the Obedience or Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as Publick Head of the Church or was the Popes Primacy there called in question This should have been exprest to make good your inference But of this we have not so much as a syllable nor any thing that can deduce it since the I le of Cyprus might well have been exempted from the obedience of any particular Patriarch and yet both it and the Patriarchs themselves subjected to one Chief or Head of the Church As there may be some free State or City in Europe independent of any particular Kingdom or Province and yet both that State and all the Kingdoms and Provinces in Europe dependent or subject to the Universal Rule of an Emperor who is Lord of the whole Yet the Doctor hath not done with us thus he hath another fling at us out of this Council of Ephesus which determined saith the Doctor That no Bishop shall encroach upon anothers Province or usurp a power where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it Which how directly adds the Doctor it prejudgeth the pretensions of Rome is so manifest that it cannot need farther demonstrating This therefore being Dr. Hammonds PRIMUM PRINCIPIUM first Principle which is so evident by the light of nature and cannot need farther demonstrating it were not amiss if we put it in a Syllogism to let the Reader see how unavoidably the Doctor deduces a break-neck conclusion to the cause of Rome out of it The Argument then stands thus The Canon of Ephesus constitutes That nâ—… Bishop shall encroach upon anothers Province oâ—… usurp a power where from the Apostles time hâ—… had not enjoyed it But the Pope must Dr. Hammond subsume hath encroacht upon anothers Province and usurpt a power where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it Therefore his pretensions are prejudiced by this Canon of Ephesus Where as every childe may see nothing follows out of the words of the Council against the Pope which are the Major until the Doctor makes good his Minor That the Pope hath thus encroached c. Yet this being all that belongs to him to prove he either supposes as a first principle though it be the onely thing in controversie or else begs of us to grant him gratis and then tells us the Conclusion is so manifest it cannot need farther demonstrating Surely he was afraid here also to go out of his way and with good reason for had he gone about to evidence his Minor he would never have arrived at his Conclusion After this most palpable and evident demonstration he gives us two instances of the same alloy One of the Archbishop of Carthage whom the Emperor Iustinian made equal in
abuse by imposing on them a false meaning borders upon Prophaneness The first Testimony is from the Twelfth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon where there is mention made of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities honored by Letters Patents from the Kings or Emperors with the name and dignities of Metropolisses where saith the Doctor the Council represses the ambition of the Bishops but not cassates the Rescripts nor withdraws the honor from the Metropolis so erected What cause the Doctor hath to brag of those newly-erected Metropolitans we shall presently shew He proceeds That Balsamon saith many Emperors had erected many Metropolitans and that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the power that was given them Thus far the Doctor whereas First the Council says onely that those Cities were honored with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name alone which the Doctor fluent in his expressions Englishes the Name and Dignity the later whereof they wanted that which should dignifie them in a degree of a Metropolitan being absolutely interdicted them by this very Canon in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let them enjoy onely the honor Secondly what this honor was your friend Balsamon tells you saying Some desired to know what that honor mean't 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and received answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that except onely that this Bishoprick was called a Metropolis in all other things it was subject to the former Metropolis Thirdly answerable to this are the very words in the Council calling the former Metropolis in contradistinction to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the true Metropolis signifying the other to be meerly titular Fourthly our question being whether the Emperor could give Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction not whether he could name places as he pleases and it being evident hence that either the Emperor never gave any Iurisdiction to the new Metropolis or if he did it was cassated by the Council nothing follows against us but totally against your self now that they had no new Jurisdiction given them is manifest out of the former plaâ—â— in Balsamon saying the Episcopacy was onely called a Metropolis to which he subjoyns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Bishop of it this new Metropolis shall be ordained by the old Metropolitan and shall be judged by him and in plain terms shall be subject to him Fifthly Balsamon tells us the Emperors did this according to the power that was given them which words the Doctor cites but leaves out a thing called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by the Interpreter Olim that is once formerly or by some precedent Council which Balsamon in that very place judges to have been the eight and thirtieth Canon in Trullo as shall be more clearly manifested hereafter The sum then of this first Testimony is That the Emperor conferred onely a name or title and that not without power given by the Church in her Councils both which are perfectly innocent to our cause and prejudicial to the Alleagers His first Observation hereupon is That this Council was within twenty years after that Grant of Valentinian and consequently saith the Doctor if Balsamon say right That at that time many Emperors had erected many there must needs be others before Valentinian Where the Observer is faln into a great mistake Balsamons words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Canon determining these things may some one say How then have divers Kings honored divers Episcopacies to be Metropolitans For now the Metropolis of Lacedemonia was a Bishoprick of the Metropolis of old PATRAE Madita of Heraclea Abyous of Cyricum and other Bishopricks also were honored It â—â—ems therefore to me from the eight and thirtieth Canon c. Where to omit that Balsamon in the first part of this Testimony intimates That Kings may be checkt in such things by Councils and not freed from that check but from some Concession of another Council the words are plain That Balsamon speaks of his own times in which he lived that is Six hundred years after the Council and that then such and such Metropolitans were made not of the time when the Council was held But the Observation is not much worth arguing or clearing His second Observation is That the seventeenth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon doth more expresly attribute this power to the Prince saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any City be built or restored by the Kings power let the Ecclesiastical order follow the Political Thus the Doctor walks up and down and yet at the same time disputes against motion He is to prove That it is the Kings proper right independent of the Church or her Canons to transfer the Ecclesiastical Dignities according to his political orders and he brings for proof a Canon of a Council or the Church constituting and ordaining it which shews that the matter depended upon the Ecclesiastical state And he calls that a more express attributing this power to the Prince which is indeed not attribuere but tribuere not an acknowledgment of it but a bestowing and conferring it This is most evident to the eye of any one who can read Greek out of the Scholion of your Friend Balsamon upon the eight and thirtieth Canon in Trullo which Scholion you quote here as if it were to your purpose and which very Canon you alleage here for your self in these words And the same power is acknowledged to belong to the Prince by the Council in Trullo Can. 38. Upon which Canon Balsamon saith thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But since the present Canon defines that those Cities which are erected or shall be erected by the Emperor be honored also by Churches conformably to the Emperors disposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We say saith Balsamon that also BY THE PRESENT CANON IT IS GIVEN TO THE EMPEROR to make new Bishopricks and raise others to the right of Metropolitans and to ordain concerning their election and administration as it shall seem good to him And a little after he recites an Edict of the Emperor to that purpose in which are found these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. My Imperial power not suffering THE PRIVILEDGE WHICH IS GRANTED IT BY THE DIVINE CANONS to be neglected ordains c. Was ever good man so mistaken as to cite such places which lookt into are as expresly against him as if they were coyn'd purposely in defiance of his doctrine Yet he forgetting the question runs on with a long Testimony That the Emperors could do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his own motion and without the ambitious sollicitation of them that sought it Whereas the question is not upon what terms it was lawful for the Emperor to give it but whether it were his own proper power annext to him as Head of the Church sollicited or not sollicited to give it at all and erect such Metropolitans at pleasure or rather whether it were
an indulgence or priviledge granted and given him by the Church in her Canons Which last is our tenet and most evidently visible in the very Testimonies alleaged against us His second Testimony for the two last were onely his over-sights or observations begins after the old strain thus And ACCORDINGLY the same Balsamon on Conc. Carthag Can. 16. doth upon that Canon professedly found the Authority of Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to advance an Episcopal See into a Metropolis and a new to constitute Bishops and Metropolitans Thus far the Doctor Where he is over head and ears again in a grievous mistake for neither doth Balsamon found the Authority of Princes to execute such Acts as of their own power on that Canon there being not a word in it to that purpose Neither doth he PROFESSEDLY say any thing as of himself but that you are PROFESSEDLY mistaken And had he said it I conceive it no such strong Argument That a professed Adversary should speak so professedly against one But indeed neither he nor the Canon say any such matter The Canon not so much as names either Episcopal or Metropolical Seâ—s but the main business there treated is That Bishops and Priests should not live upon base occupations nor employ themselves in secular businesses Which Balsamon in his Scholion or Comment more elucidates from like prohibitions of other Patriarchs adding in the end out of other mens opinions and not his own profession these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But some say these Canons or Constitutions take place when any one who hath taken holy Orders shall exercise a secular Ministery without the command of the Emperor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And they adde saith Balsamon that the King is neither under Laws nor Canons and therefore he may securely make a Bishoprick a Metropolis c. and anew constitute Bishops and Metropolitans Where the Reader may see he introduces this as a deduction of others and that from no other grounds then this A King is neither bound by Canons nor Laws that is his Will is his Law or he may do lawfully what he lists and then indeed these grounds supposed I blame not the inference that he should erect transplant nâ—y pull down not only Bishops and Patriarchs but the whole Hierarchy it self your present lot consequent to these your grounds Thus at length we have found the bottom-stone of the Doctors grounds Why Kings may erect Patriarchates by their proper power not to be Councils as he pretended but their own all-lawful inerrableness to do what they please let Councils Canons Parliaments and Laws say what they will to the contrary A foundation fitting indeed to build the Doctors Assertion upon but in all other respects able to ruine and overthrow both Laws Commonwealths Canons and Church In his fifteenth Section persisting still in his seigned supposal That the Popes power is onely Patriarchal he goes on to prove that the antiquity of translating Patriarchs and Bishops belongs to Kings as well as of erecting Of which he gives some instances in our Countrey of England By which what he means to prove I cannot easily conjecture If he intends that Kings did oft do such things I wonder who denies it but if they did it by their proper right without the order or consent either of the Apostolical See or the Ecclesiastical State of his own Bishops he brings not one word in proof but rather expresly manifests the contrary from the carriage of St. Anselm then Archbishop of Canterbury as learned and pious a Prelate as that age produced who as the Doctor confesses when the King would have cut off as much from the Diocess of Lincoln as would make a new Bishoprick at Ely Anselm wrote to Pope Paschalis desiring his consent to it assuring him he would not give his consent but salvâ authoritate Papae the authority of the Pope being secured Where you see plainly the Archbishops consent was necessary and that without it the Kings desire seemed controleable Next that the Archbishop himself even with the Kings authority to back him would not venture on it till the Pope's consent was asked Here then Mr. Doctor you have a positive Testimony of the gravest Prelate our Countrey hath ever been honored with refusing the sufficiency of the Kings sole authority to conclude such businesses without his and the Popes consent which therefore more justly challenges audience in the Court of Reason then all your dumb Negatives though they were a thousand more To conclude in what your Testimonies were Positive to wit that such things were done de facto so far we yeeld to them in what they are Negative tacitly inferring that because they were done and no mans right named therefore they were done de jure by the proper right of him that did them So far we allow them no credit at all First Because they might have been performed by the secular Authorities either with consent of the Bishops or some indulgent grant of the Church to pious Princes or by order from the Pope or else Concession of some former Council an example of which we had lately in the Council of Chalcedon Next because Histories intending onely to relate matters of fact mention rather those that put things in execution and more visibly appear in the transacting them such as are Secular Magistrates and stand not scanning or debating much by whose right things were done which belongs to Lawyers and would be but a by-discourse hindering the orderly process of their Narrative strain Thirdly because every one who hath the least smack of Logick knows A Negative Argument proves nothing such as are all yours here alleaged For this is the tenor of them Historians say Some Kings translated some Patriarchates and it is not mentioned they did it by the Churches power therefore they did it by their own which will be found in good Logick to fall very far short of concluding Lastly because the Church ever challenged as her own proper right asserted to her by the Canons the jurisdiction and power to intermeddle in businesses purely Ecclesiastical In his seventeenth Paragraph he proposes two other Objections of the same nature with the rest The first in common that the King could exempt from Episcopal Jurisdiction which he says is largely asserted and exemplified in Coudrayes case 5 Report 14. And truly the Doctor is to be commended for his fair and sincere expression For it is indeed meerly asserted and exemplified without the least shadow of proof In the first example there alleaged King Kenulphus is said to have exempted a Monastery Consilio consensis Episcoporum Senatorum Gentis suae which was no instance of power in him unless it was also in the Bishops and Nobles That he could not or would not do it without their agreement The exemption of Reading Abbey by Henry the First argues no authority he being the Founder of it and not bound to give his goods to the Church
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
all that is in the Britannick World belongs to us and is derived to us Yet is this also false For nothing in History is more evident than that the British Churches admitted appellations to Rome at the Council of Sardica And as much as we have Records in our Histories of the Pope Eleutherius so much appeares the Popes Authority in that time And out of St. Prosper contra Collatorem in Chron. Wee have that the Pope Celestinus by his care and sending St. German Vice sua in his own stead freed the Britans from Pelagianism and converted the Scots by Palladius though Venerable Bede as far as I remember does not touch that circumstance But that which is mainly to the purpose is that since the Priviledge wee pretend was one that descends upon the Pope in quality of Successor to St. Peter how far it was executed may be unknown but that it was due none can bee ignorant And here our late Bishop begins to shuffle from the priviledge of St. Peter to the Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Pope which is another an historical a mutable power and so concernes not our present debate Two objections he makes seem to deserve an answer First That the Welsh or Britans sided with the Eastern Churches against the Roman in the observation of Easter To which I answer 't is true they observ'd not Easter right yet never so much as cited the Eastern Churches in abetment of their practise but onely the custome of their own Ancestors Neither was there any cause of siding wee not hearing it was ever pressed by the Church of Rome after Victor's time to any height The Council of Nice and the Emperour Constantine exhorted the Christian World to it but without any coercitive force And if the Britans resisted or rather neglected them I think wee ought not to say they sided against them but onely did not execute their desires St. Irenâ—us was of the French Church yet testifies this question was no matter of division so that it cannot bee guess'd by this what influence the Roman Church had or had not upon the British It seemes certain also that St. Lupus and Germanus neglected this Point that is thought it not necessary to be corrected however St. Austin seem'd more rigorous And though Palladius sent from Celestinus converted the Scots yet we find some of them in the same practise The second Objection is out of a piece of a worn Welsh Manuscript hoped by the Protestants to bee a Copy of some ancienter Original which though it has already been proved a manifest forgery counterfeited by all likelyhood in Q. Elizabeths time when the English Protestants sought to corrupt the Welsh by Catechisms and other Writings printed and not printed Yet if their great Antiquaries can shew that in St. Gregories time this name Papa or Pope taken by it self without other addition as Papa Urbis Romae c. was put as in later ages for the Bishop of Rome I shall confesse my selfe much surpriz'd If they cannot these very words sufficiently convince the Manuscript to bee a meer Imposture Another suspition against the legitimatnes of this paper naturally arises from this that Sr. Henry Spelman one so diligent in wiâ—ing off the dust from old writings found no other Antiquity in it worth the mention which shrewdly implies the Book was made for this alone And so this demonstrative proof of the Bishop is a conviction of the forgery of some counterfeit Knaue and the easiness of assent in Mr. Mosten and the Knight In his 6th Chapter he pretends three things 1. That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdraw their obedience from Rome 2ly That they had sufficient grounds for it and 3ly That they did it with due moderation I doubt not but the intelligent Reader understands by the first point that the Bishop meanes to shuffle away the true difficulty and whereas the Question is of the Priviledge given by Christ to Saint Peter and from him descended to the Popes his Successors spend his time about a Patriarchal Authority which wee also acknowledge to be of humane institution And here I must confesse that generally when no body opposes him his Lordship carries it clearly and gives his empty Reader full satisfaction Hee tells you out of Catholike Authors that Princes may resist the oppressions of Ecclesiasticks and themselves have priviledge to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction That Popes have been convented and deposed That Emperors have changed Patriarchs and that the Kings of England have as much power as Emperors And all this to handle the Question which is not in hand since our dispute is not what can be done in respect of the Popes Patriarchal Authority which the good Bishop himself professes the Pope has renounced these 600. years No doubt but th' other two points will follow the former in missing the Question For admitting the Popes Authority to bee derived from Christ what grounds can there bee for renouncing it or what moderation is the rejjecting it capable of Nay even if it were of humane institution many things there are which cannot bee rejected unless it appear the abuses are not otherwise remediable Suppose then the Christian World had chosen themselves one Head for the preservation oâ—â—o precious a Jewel as Unity in Religion how great absurdities must that Head commit what wrongâ— must it doe to cause it selfe to bee justly deposed and not onely the Person deposed but the very Government abolish't Suppose again that this alteration should â—ee made by some one party of the Christian Common-â—ealth which must separate it selfe from the assistance and communication of the â—â—st of Christianity ought not far weightier causes bee expected or greater abuses committed Suppose thirdly that by setting aside this Supreme Head eternal dissentions will inevibly follow in the whole Church of Christ to the utter ruine of faith and good life which our Saviour thought worth the comming down from Heaven to plant among us and then tell mee whether the refusal to comply with the humours of a lustful Prince be ground enough â—o renounce so necessary an Authority Let the Bishop bee now asked whether Kings deserve to bee deposed and Monarchy it selfâ— rejected for such abuses as hee gathers against the Pope or whether there may not easily bee made a collection of as many an I great misgovernments against the Court of England or any other Country Let him remember whether like abuses were not alledged against his own Parliamentary-Prelacy when it was put down Will hee justifie that if the mâ—â—demeanours pretended against them had been true the extirpation of Prelacy had been lawfull Surely hee would find out many remedies which hee would think necessary to bee first tryed and Sâ—â—ggin should as soon haue chosen a tree to bee hanged on as â—hee have ended the number of expedients to be â—â—yed before hee would give his assent to the extirpation of Episcopacy It is then of little concern to
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
have omitted the two chief branches of Schism and most of all made use of by us against you to wit Schism from the whole body of the Church and from its highest Tribunal The General Councils which wee as freshly and more chiefly charge upon you than any of the â—est The Last SECT Our Objection that the pretended Church of England is now invisible maintained and asserted to be just SChism being thus establish't as legitimate and laudable the Patron of it resolvs to prosecute his Project home and therefore strives in this last Chapter to wipe off any prejudice arising from their present distractions and persecutions the proper effects of their Schism The occasion seemes taken from some of our side calling them The late Church of England as if now a FUIT were put to their former being by their present misfortune Our advantage offer'd from thence hee formes and that rightly in to this objection that it is absolutely necessary to communicate with some one visible Church that now the Church of England is not such and consequently the Church of Rome so illustriously visible must be taken up in stead of it Thus far abstracting from the partiality in his manner of expression wee both agree In answer to which the Doctor alledges first That a member of the English Church was not under this guilt of not communicating with some one visible Church twenty yeares agoe and consequently unlesse he have contracted this guilt since by commission or omission of something hee can no more bee charged with the Crime now than formerly All this while the Doctor is in a mistake and runs on very currantly but quite out of his way For we doe not object this present condition to them as a crime or guilt rather that which was twenty yeares and more ago was their crime and this their punishment but as a different state from the former or indeed more truly the want of a State For twenty yeares agoe though they wanted the substance yet they had at least a shadow or Ghost of a Church which might delude the eyes of the simple but now even that has disappear'd and vanish't into Aire Our advantage not taken but offer'd from thence is this that as before they had a shew of a Church so their adherents whose weaker eyes could not distinguish substance from shadow might have then some shadow of motive or excuse for remaining in it and not returning to us but now this fayery apparition being gone not even so much as the least resemblance of a motive is left to lead them through the wayless path of their dark doctrine or hinder them from returning to the common beaten road of their Ancestors The objection of this then is not vain as the Dr. imagins since a new and stronger motive offer'd deserves in reason a new distinct and fresh proposal I grant therefore Mr. Dr. that it is not your choice crime or offence to bee in this misery though it bee your fault that you were brought into iâ— it bring a connatural punishment orderly subsequent to the vice of Schism as shall afterwards be shewn And the present invisibility of your Church is never the lesse true and real though we admit it be your misfortune not your crime since a ship may as well bee cast away in an unavoydable storme as by the negligence of the Pilot Neither doe I take it to be the saddest part of your infelicity as you call it but rather the greatest happiness that Gods sweetly-chastising mercy could have sent you that by weighing your present dissolution and the causes of it you may retrive your wandrings and recollect all your scatter'd and distracted members into the ever-firmly United Body of the holy Catholike Church Thirdly for the Doctor was so eagerly zealous to clear his twenty-years-ago Protestant that hee put first and thirdly but quite forgot secondly he runs on in his errour that wee impute this state of their Church to the Protestant as a guilt from which he goes about to clear him For if he hath contracted this guilt saies the Dr. it must be by some irregularity of actions contrary to the standing Rule Canons of this Church whereas I conceive it very regularly consequent to your new Canons that you should fall into this very condition you now groan under For your Rule and Canons granting the Authority of the Secular Power to be the BASIS of your Reformation Head of the Church-Government Supreme in Ecclesiastical matters and your onely defence and excuse when wee ask you upon what Authority you left us it is natural and imbred in the very primogenial Constitution of your Church that it should be dissolvable at the pleasure of the same power which set it up It is not therefore the standing to the Rule and Canons of your Church which secures you in a firm and immutable perpetuity but those very grounds are they which engage you in a fleeting and perpetual mutability You applaud with your Encomiums the Protestant that hath actually lost his possessions liberty c. rather than depart from his rule which truly I conceive a very irrational action in him and deserving more pity than commendations For the 39. Articles being the most distinct Rule Protestants have one of which defines that General Councils both can Erre and have erred whence follows a fortiori that their own Meeting where these Articles their Rule were made being at most but a Provincial Assembly is much more lyable to errour I see no reason why hee shold lose the certain possession of present goods for maintaining an uncertain opinion especially since hee holds salvation can bee had in other Sects as appeares by Dr. Hammonds admitting all whom hee calls Christians to his Communion And if the Doctor reply it was their conscienciousness to hold what they supposed true I answer their conscience is imprudently govern'd whilst it instigates them to professe with their own so great disadvantage and loss what they had no obligation to hold for none can be oblig'd to the beleef of a point which himself those who propose it are uncertain whether it be true or no. Though if I be not misinform'd the greater part of your suffering-fellow-Protestants have had more wit and most commonly were put out upon other pretences than their Religion Thus far the Doctor hath proceeded clearing himselfe from the want of a visible Church imagining we object it a guilt or crime whereas we only propose it and more urgingly press it to the consideration of the misled Protestants as a decay corruption annihilation of the former visible shadow of a Church and the occasion of a new fault in them that having lost their own they return not to ours out of which they confesse they came and of which they protested theirs to be a member In the next place hee tells us that as yet Blessed bee God the Church of England is not invisible it is preserved