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
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
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
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