A REPLY TO THE CATHOLICK GENTLEMANS ANSWER TO The most materiall parts of the Booke of SCHISME Whereto is annexed An Account of H. T. his Appendix to his Manual of Controversies concerning the Abbot of Bangors Answer to Augustine By H. HAMMOND D. D. LONDON Printed by J. G. for R. ROYSTON at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1654. A REPLY TO The Catholick Gentlemans Answer to the Book of SCHISME The Introduction Nū 1 THe Letter from the Catholick Gentleman which undertakes to have answered the most materiall parts of the Book of Schisme is said to expect some account from me And I shall give it if not quite with the same brevity yet directly in the same method which he hath chosen attending him as he shall please to lead not by resuming the whole matter againe but by reflecting on those few passages which he hath thought good to take notice of and freeing them from all though the lightest exceptions which he hath made to them Num. 2 Upon this account I shall say very little to his Prooem in these words SIR You have been pleased to send me Doctor Hammonds Booke of Schisme or a Defence of the Church of England against the exceptions of the Romanists as also your Letters wherein you lay commands on me to read it and thereupon to give you my opinion truly Sir both the one and the other could never have come to me in better season for having heard from some of my friends in England a good while since of another Book written by Doctor Ferne to the same purpose as also one lately come out of the Bishop of Derries and of this which you have sent me I was wondring what those who call themselves of the Church of England could say to defend themselves from Schisme but now through your favour of letting me see this of Doctor Hammonds I am freed from my bondage and satisfied in supposition that the most can adde little to what hath been upon that subject of Schisme said by him whom you stile Wise and Learned and well may he be so but here he hath failed as all men must that take in hand to defend a bad cause which I thinke to make appeare to you or any indifferent judge and which I will doe rather upon some observations of severall passages in his book than consideration of the whole which I will leave for some other who hath more leisure In the meane time I must say with the Poet speaking of some Lawyers in his time Fur es ait Pedio Pedius quid Crimina raris Librat in Antithetis The Roman Catholick sayes to Doctor Hammond You are an Heretick you are a Schismatick and Doctor Hammond replies good English some Criticismes much Greek with many citations out of antiquity indifferent to both parts of the question Num. 3 I shall not here need solemnly to aveit the good words bestowed on me because 1. if they had been meant in earnest they have yet no influence on the matter in hand As unlearned a Man as I and as learned as he which is by some characters thought to be the Author of this Answer may agree in this common fate that as one is not able to defend a bad cause so the other hath not in any eminent manner betrayed a good 2. because 't is evident that it was designe and artifice to bestow the good words on me that so he might get himselfe the easier taske And therefore the onely thing that is here necessary for me to tell the Reader by way of Prooeme is that since the publishing this tract of Schisme that most excellent discourse on the same subject written by the Bishop of Derry hath truly made that former care of mine very unnecessary and so should in all reason have been undertaken and answered by this Catholick Gentleman if he had really designed to satisfie conscience in this question And should it be believed by him what here he saith in the Title page that he hath answered the most materiall parts of Doctor Hammonds Book of Schisme yet I can assure him he is so much mistaken in his supposall that there can little be added by any to what hath been said by him that he is in all justice to undeceive the Reader and make him amends by giving him not a slight but punctuall answer to every part of that Bishops Booke before he thinke he may safely charge the Church of England with Schisme as still he adventures to doe Num. 4 Having said this I shall make no kinde of Reply to the rest of his Prooeme but proceed immediately to his first and onely exception wherein the first Chapter is concerned CHAP. I Of the cause of Schisme being left out of this debate Sect. I. No cause able to justifie Schisme Every voluntary Division a Schisme whatsoever the motive were Master Knot 's Testimony Num. 1 HIs words are these But to draw neere your satisfaction His first Chapter is for the body of it common to both parts yet I cannot omit one strange piece of Logick at the end of the first Chapter Sect. 9. where he concludeth that the occasion or motive of Schisme is not to be considered but onely the fact of Schisme Of which position I can see no connexion to any praemises going before and it selfe is a pure contradiction for not a Division but a causlesse division is a Schisme and how a Division can be shewed to be unreasonable and causelesse without examining the occasions and motives I doe not understand nor with his favour I thinke he himselfe Num. 2 What want of Logick there is in that conclusion of the first Chapter which extorted this animadversion from the Romanist and what store of that faculty somewhat necessary to the managing of a controversie we are to expect from him will soon be discernible by the view of that place which is accused by him where having praemised the criminousnesse and weight of Schisme and unexcusablenesse of all that upon what provocation soever breake the unity of the Church I conclude that he that shall really be guilty of it and the fact wherein that guilt consists proved against him will no way be able to defend himselfe by pleading the cause or motive to his Schisme there being no such cause imaginable which can justifie this fact of his as both out of Irenaeus and Saint Augustine had been newly vouched Upon which my resolution there was as to me seemed but necessary to divolve the Whole debate into this one quaere whether we of the Church of England were de facto guilty of this crime were Schismaticks or no concluding that if we were there were nothing to be said in excuse of us Num. 3 From this view of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rational importance of that Section 1. It is evident what the Romanist professeth not to be able to see what is the connexion of my position to the praemises foregoing viz. this no cause can excuse the
their duty so to determine and crime that they were unwilling laying the whole weight of the argument upon this that the pretensions for the Popes supremacy in England must be founded either as successor to S. Peter in the univer sal Pastorship of the Church so including England as a member thereof or upon paternal right respecting S. Augustine's conversion or upon concession from some of our Kings c. To which I answer that we relie on the first as the foundation and corner-stone of the whole building On the second as an action worthy the successor of S. Peter which requires a gratefull consideration from us And on the third not as a concession but as a just acknowlengment of what was necessary for the good of Christian Religion taught our Kings by those who taught them Christian Religion of which belief I mean that the Pope as Successor to S. Peter is head and governour of the Vniversal Church we have been in possession ever since the conversion of our English Ancestors then Saxons to the Christian religion made by Austin the Monk sent hither by Pope Gregory for that purpose untill that good King Henry the VIII out of scrupulosity of conscience no noubt was pleased to cut the Gordian knot of those bonds within which all his Ancestors limited themselves neither shall all that the Doctor and his fellows have said or can say justifie themselves so but that such a possession as I here speak of will convince them of schisme though all those replies which by ours have been 40 times made to every one of those arguments the Doctor uses should bear but equal weight in the scale which we think hoises it up into the aire for the arguments must be demonstrative and clear to men of common sense that must overthrow such a possession and therefore it is that the Puritans who are much lesse friends to the Church of Rome than to the Church of England wave all disputing out of Antiquity and confesse that the Church of Rome hath born a sway without any debatable contradiction over the Christian world 126 years a time that no King in the world can pretend to by succession from his Ancestors for possession of his crown and yet I believe the Doctor would conclude those subjects guilty of rebellion which should goe about to deprive such a King of his Crown though he could not shew writings evidently concluding for him 12 14 15 or 1600 years agoe how much more if he could shew them demonstrating his right in the interpretation of as wise and learned men as the world hath and 20 times the numbers of their adversaries Num. 3 The first thing here objected to my discourse is as Orators are wont to doe for the raising of passions a mention of some circumstances which though extrinsecal to the matter may yet hope to have some influence on an unwary Reader and infuse no small prejudices into him such are the infamous occasion of the breach begun by that King and such is the odious character fastned on him of England's Nero c. Num. 4 But it cannot be necessary for me to offer an Apologie on either of these two heads If that which he did in this particular of ejecting the Papal power be in it self justifiable both in respect of the matter of the action and the competency of the power that did it it matters not what moved him to doe it or how inclinable he was to have rescinded it The farther he were from a truly pious man the more likely it is he might be brought by secular interests and the lesse likely that it was by any religious to undoe all that upon the weightiest grounds of reason had been establisht by him Without examining therefore the truth of that suggestion that to his dying day he desired to be reconciled and without demanding what is meant by that phrase desired to be reconciled whether any overture to receive the Popes on his owne termes into full possession againe or onely a desire to approve himselfe to the Pope that he still maintained the Catholike nay Roman Faith as we know he put men to death for denying some Doctrines profest at Rome that what he had done was no whit injurious to him prejudiciall or derogatory to any right which could justly be chalenged by the Pope in this Kingdome without either of these inquires I say If I shall take for granted the utmost that can be pretended that for a long time together he desired to have rescinded what he had done I see not what disadvantage this can be to our pretensions Num. 5 For 1. I shall demand was he all this while that he thus desired to be reconciled a truly changed and Pious Prince was that principle of wicked life so soone eradicated which even now denominated him a Nero and made it fit to esteeme that a great good which he began to abolish and did he thus continue a new reformed penitent to his dying day If so then truly Sir W. R. was very unkinde and unchristian in recording his crimes and omitting his repentance and it is no excellent port of this Gentlemans character that he thought fit to imitate and quote him in this the same injustice in an Historian or Observator that it had been in Eusebius to take so much of the life of Constantine out of Zosimus or Julian's Caesars as should render him justly odious and to omit the whole latter part of his life which was so eminently vertuous and Christian Num. 6 But if this Prince still continued to be like that image which here is pourtrayed of him then sure I shall with the same evidence of proofe be allowed to object those vices and those no excellent Christian motives that incited it to his desire of being reconciled or his willingnesse to re-admit the Papall power into this Kingdome and conclude that the ejection of it must be a great good which he was so inclinable to abolish and so the faith of the reformed which he so more than began to persecute and all this as regularly as his personall vices and the infamus occasion be it never so truly so can be objected to that act of State which past in that Kings reigne for the disclaimig the Papal powers among us Num. 7 Nay if that passage in his storie had acquired a yet farther degree of Truth if the Post had come two dayes sooner to Rome and so had actually composed the difference between that King and that Pope so as had been most for the interest of Rome yet it is evident that my discourse had no way been concerned in this This evidently had been no more than what afterwards came to passe in Marie's dayes and it would still be in the power of King Henries immediate successor to remove the power from Rome to Canterbury as it had been in the power of Henry either to doe it or undoe it againe Num. 8 And therefore the whole
affirmed was true or that the beliefe of it had possession in the whole Church before Nay the contrary will be most evident that at that very time the British Bishops acknowledged not any such power over them in the Pope or any other as is cited from the Abbate of Bangor cap. 16. Sect. 5. and much more to the same purpose Num. 18 And 't is no newes to remind him out of their owne Canon Law that some of their Popes have disclaimed and that not without great aversation and detestation of the arrogance of it the title of Vniversal Bishop or Pastor and acknowleged it is a very ominous Symptome in any that shall assume it and considering the prejudices that lye against it from the first oecumenical Councils all the Ordinances whereof the Popes at their creations vow to maintaine inviolably and against which to constitute or innovate any thing ne hujus quidem sedis potest authoritas it is not in the power of this See saith Pope Zosimus 25. qu. 1. c. Contra. I may justly conclude that all are obliged to doe the like Num. 19 But then secondly what truth there is in it in thesi that from S. Augustine's plantation to this time of Henry VIII the Romanists have been in possession of this belief of the Popes universal Pastorship must be contested by evidences And 1. For Augustine himself it appears not by the story in Bede that he did at all preach this doctrine to the nation nay as upon Augustine's demand concerning ceremonies Pope Gregory bindes him not to conform all to the Canons or practice of Rome but bids him freely choose that which may most please God wheresoever he findes it sive in Galliaâ—um sive in qualibet Ecclesiâ— whether in France or in any other Church haec quasi in Fasciculum collecta apud Anglorum mentes in consuetudinem deponere make up a Book of such Canons to be observed in England which clearly shews that the Romish Canons were not to be in power in England so when the difference betwixt him and the British Bishops of whom it hath been shewed that they acknowledged not the Pope to have any power over them came to be composed he required compliance and obedience from them but in three things the observation of Easter according to the order of the Church of Rome and the Nicene Canon the Ministration of Baptisme and joyning with him to preach to the English Which is some prejudice to the founding of this belief in Augustine's preaching Num. 20 Nay when Bede comes to speak of Gregory then Pope by way of Encomium at his death the utmost he faith of him is that cùm primùm in toto orbe gereret Pontifieatum conversis jamdudum Ecclesiis praelatus esset c. being Bishop of the Prime Church in the whole world and set over those Churches which had been long since converted and having now taken care to propagate that faith to England he might justly be called our Apostle and say as S. Paul did that if to others he were not an Apostle yet he was to us Num. 21 As for that of Vniversal Pastorship certainly we may take Gregory's own word that no such thing was then thought to belong to him in his Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria visible among his works and inserted in the body of their Canon Law Nam dixi c. I told you that you were not to write to me or any other in that style and behold in the Preface of that Epistle directed to me who thus prohibited you have set this proud appellation calling me universal Pope or Father which I desire you will doe no more for it is a derogating from you to bestow on another more than reason requires I count it not my honour wherein I know my brethren lose their honour My honour is the honour of the universal Church My honour is that my brethren should enjoy what fully belongs to them so I render fratrum meorum solidus vigor then am I truly honoured when the honour which is due to all is denied to none For if you call me universal Pope you deny that to your self which you attribute all to me And farther tells him with expressions of aversation Absit and recedant that this honour had by a Councel been offered to his Predecessors the Councel of Chalcedon that gave it equally to him and the Bishop of Constantinople which is in effect to give to neither the power or sense but onely the title of it but no one of them would ever use this title This sure iâ— evidence enough that if at that time any such belief of the Vniversal Pastorship of the Pope entred this Nation it must needs be the belief of a known acknowledged falsity and so farre from a bonae fidei possessio Num. 22 After this what possession this belief had among us may be judged by some of those many instances put together by the Bishops in Henry VIII his daies as the premises whereon that King built his conclusion of ejecting that Power which was then usurped by the Pope Num. 23 First a statute that for Ecclesiastical appeals they shall in the last resort lie from the Archbishop to the King so as not to proceed any farther without the Kings assent Num. 24 Secondly that Tunstan Archbishop elect of Yorke asking leave of the King to go to a Councel designed by Calixtus had it granted with this reserve that he should not receive Episcopal benediction from the Pope Num. 25 Thirdly that the Kings of England from time to time had and exercised authority of making lawes in Ecclesiastical matters Eight such Lawes are there recited of Canutus his making the like of King Ethelred Edgar Edmund Aethelstane Ina King of the West Saxons and King Alfred Num. 26 Fourthly that William the Conquerour instituting and indowing the Abbey of Battell gave the Abbat exemption from all jurisdiction of any Bishops aut quarumlibet personarum dominatione from all dominion or rule of any persons whatsoever sicut Ecclesia Christi Cantuariensis in like manner as the Church of Canterbury Which imports two things 1. that the Church of Canterbury had no such Ruler over him but the King and 2. that the Abbat of Battell was by regal power invested with the same privileges Num. 27 But I suppose all these and many the like instances which might be brought derogatory enough to the possession in this belief here pretended will but adde one more to the number of such arguments of which this Gentleman saith that they have fourty times had replies made to them And truly this is a good easie compendious way which as it secures him against all that can be produced so it doth not incourage me to spend time in collecting and producing more and therefore this shall suffice to have added now concerning this matter being apt to flatter my self that these arguments are demonstrative and clear enough
not convinced of any error in them and surely the bare damning of us is not any such matter of conviction so there is a double uncharitableness 1. of being angry without cause and expressing that anger in very ill language of which that of Heretick and Schismatick is the mildest and each of those causlesse too if they be affixt to any particular man much more to a whole Church before either of them be sufficiently proved against us For certainly as the Romanist's judgment concerning us if it be false may yet be but error not malice by which this Gentleman here justifies himself from want of charity so our opinions and perswasions of the erroneousness of their doctrines and sinfulness of their practices if possibly they be not true also are still as justly and equitably capable of the same excuse that they are involuntary errors and then by their own rule cannot justly fall under such their rigid censures which belong to none but voluntary offenders Num. 4 Secondly the indevouring to insnare and pervert fearful or feeble minds using these terrors as the Lyon doth his roaring to intimidate the prey and make it not rationally but astonishtly fall down before them And as the offering due grounds of conviction to him that is in error may justly be deemed charity so this tender of nothing but frights without offer of such grounds of conviction is but leading men into temptation to sin against conscience to dissimulation c. and so the hating the brother in the heart Lev. 19. the more than suffering sin upon him Num. 5 To these might be not unseasonably added a farther consideration which hath carried weight with the Fathers of the Church in all times that seeing the Censures of the Church were left there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for edification not for destruction and are onely designed to charitative ends must never be used to any other purpose therefore when obedience it utterly cast off the band be it of subordination or co-ordination so broken that the issuing out of Censures cannot expect to compose but onely to widen the breach not to mollifie but exasperate there Christian prudence is to indevour by milder waies what severity is not likely to effect and so the thunderbolts to be laid up till there may be some probability of doing good by them Num. 6 But this is not the case as it really lies betwixt Rome and us save onely as à majori it may be accommodated to us we have cast off neither obedience to any to whom it was due nor charity to those who have least to us nor truth to the utmost of our understandings and yet we must be cast out and anathematized and after all that condemned as wilful schismaticks i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dividers and condemners of our selves because we quietly submit to that fate which will cost us too dear the wounding and disquiet of our conscience to qualifie our selves for a capacity of getting out of it Num. 7 What he adds of their highest tribunal the Churches voice which hath passed this judgment against us belongs I suppose to those Bishops of Rome which have sent out their Bulls against us and therefore I must in reason adde that those are principally guilty of this schisme and so their successors principally obliged to retract and reform the sin of it and after them all others in the order and measure that they have partaked in this guilt with them Num. 8 And there can be no greater charity than to beseech all in the bowels of Christ to return to the practice of that charity which hath too long been exiled from among Christian Professors CHAP. XI An Answer to the Exceptions made to the last Chapter Sect. I. Of the present state of the Church of England The Catholicks promise for eternity to his Church Roma aeterna Particular Churches perishable Mr. Hooker's prediction of the Church The power of the secular Magistrate to remove Bishops Sees not to make Bishops The Councel of Florence concerning the Popes supremacy c. Marcus's opinion of it Joseph Methonens his answer briefly examined Num. 1 THE last part of this Gentleman's indevour is to perswade men that the Church of England is not onely persecuted but destroyed and of that he means to make his advantage to fetch in Proselytes being out of his great charity very sensible of their estate unwilling they should sit any longer in the vault or charnel house to communicate with shades when they are invited to a fairer sunshine in a vital and very flourishing society Thus then he begins his reply to the 11th Chapter Num. 2 In the last Chapter he complaineth of the Catholicks for reproaching them with the losse of their Church and arguing with their disciples in this sort Communion in some Church even externally is necessary but you cannot now communicate with your late Church for that hath no subsistence therefore you ought to return to the Church from whence you went out truly in this case I think they ought to pardon the Catholick who hath or undoubtedly is perswaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church and experience in the execution of that promise for 16 Ages in which none other can compare with him and sees another Church judged by one of the learnedst and most prudent persons confessedly that ever was among them to be a building likely to last but 80 years and to be now torn up by the roots and this done by the same means by which it was setled I say if this Catholick believe his eyes he is at least to be excused and though I know the Doctor will reply his Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained yet let him remember how inconsequent this is to what be hath said before for ask him how it doth remain in being if there be no such Bishops or Presbyters among them for his defense against the Church of Rome is that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters from whence it will follow that as they were set up by a secular authority so are they pulled down and unbishoped by another secular authority if it be said the Parliament that pulled them down had not the three bodies requisite to make a Parliament no more had that which set them up for the Lords Spiritual were wanting both in Parliament and Convocation so that there was as much authority to pull them down as to set them up but it will be replied that though they are pulled down yet are they still Bishops viz the character remains upon them Alas what is their Character if their mission of Preaching and Teaching be extinguished which follows their jurisdiction which jurisdiction the Doctor makes subject to the secular authority so that whatsoever characters their Bishops and Presbyters pretend to have they have according to his principles no power over the laity and so no character can
very small matter will serve turne with this Gentleman to support a con lusion which he hath a mind to inferre otherwise Master Hookers Testimony had never been produced to this matter The words of that truly most learned and prudent person are to be found in his fifth Book Num. 79. in the Conclusion The subject of that whole Paragraph beginning pag. 424. is of Oblations Foundations Endowments Tithes all intended for the perpetuity of Religion which was in his opinion sure to be frustrated by alienation of Church livings and this being largely handled by him throughout that Paragraph at length he observes 1. what waste Covetousnesse had made in the Church by such Commutations as were proportionable to Glaucus's change giving the Church flanel for Gold and 2. how Religion it self was made a Sollicitor and perswader of Sacrilege signifying that to give to God is error and to take it away againe Reformation of error concluding in these words By these or the like suggestions received with all joy and with like sedulity practised in certain parts of the Christian world they have brought to passe that as David doth say of Man so it is in danger to be verified concerning the whole Religion and service of God the time thereof may peradventure fall out to be threescore and ten yeers or if strength doe serve unto fourescore what followeth is likely to be small joy for them whosoever they be that behold it Thus have the best things been overthrowne not so much by puissance and might of a versaries as through defect of Councel in them that should have upheld and defended the same Num. 10 This is the first importance of that place which the Gentleman hath so disguised in his abbreviation Mr. Hooker foretells what a destructive influence Sacrilege may have on the whole Religion and Service of God observes in certain parts of the Christian world without naming any that sacrilegious suggestions are received with all joy and putting these two together presageth sad events to the whole Religion and service of God within threescore and ten or fourescore yeares and from hence this Gentleman concludes it Master Hooker's judgement that the Church of England was a building likely to last but fourescore yeares Num. 11 In what mode and figure this conclusion is thus made from the premisses he leaves us to divine who have not sagacity enough to discern it The conclusion to all mens understanding will most regularly follow thus that the Church of England was so constituted that all the enemies thereof on either side were never likely to destroy it by arguments and consequent'y that the most probable way remaining to Satan to accomplish his designe was by sacrilegious violations to impoverish and subdue the maintainers of it which as he foresaw very likely to come to passe within the age of a man so it would be no joyfull sight when it should come he was not so unkinde to any part of the Church of God as to be willing to live to see it Num. 12 And if this Gentleman's inclinations have qualified him for the receiving pleasure or joy in such a spectacle I shall as little envy him the prosperity which hath thus petrified his bowels as he shall think fit to envy me the honour of being a member of the purest being withall the most persecuted Church Num. 13 Thirdly That these words of Mr. Hooker thus pitifully distorted are the onely proof he hath for his assertion that this Church of ours hath now no subsistence and that it is now torn up by the roots A way of arguing very conformable to his characters of a true Church of which external glory and prosperity must never misse to be one but very unlike the image of Christ the head to which his Church the body may be allowed to hold some proportion of conformity for of him we can give no livelier pourtraiture than as we finde him crucified between two thieves whilst the souldiers divide his garments though they were not over-sumptuous and cast lots who shall have his vesture Num. 14 What next follows is an answer to a supposed objection of ours and that is a farther evidence of what I said that Mr. Hooker's distorted speech is the onely proof of his proposition The objection is that our Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained and to this objection he will make some answer from our own principles of which he supposeth this to be one that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters and saith without any regrets that this is my defence against the Bishop of Rome Num. 15 Many replies might be made to take off all appearance of force from this answer As 1. that this to which the answer is accommodated is not my objection The truth is I took not on me the objectors part in that place but evidenced it by clear demonstration that if twenty years agoe the Church of England was a Church it must needs be so now being the very same that then it was except these bands as the Apostle once said who I hope did not cease to be an Apostle by being imprisoned And when I mentioned the Church of Englands being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained together with multitudes rightly baptized which sure are all the necessary ingredients in constituting a visible Church I added none of which have fallen off from their profession and then foreseeing the onely possible objection to inferre the Church guilty of schisme I answered that by remembring the Primitive persecutions and night-meetings and the very manner of the Romanists serving God in this Kingdome for these many years Num. 16 And all this is pulled off from the clue and fumbled together into an objection of mine supposed to be made against that which the Romanist without either tender of proof or reason had crudely affirmed But truly I may be believed that I meant not that affirmation so much respect as to offer objection against it And then that is one speedy way of concluding this matter Num. 17 But then secondly for that saying of mine on which he will form his answer to this imaginary objection 't is certain I never said any such thing as is here suggested That the supreme Magistrate hath power to erect and translate Patriarchates and the like I had affirmed indeed i. e. to make that a Patriarchal See which had not formerly been such so to ennoble a town or city that according to the Canons of the Church it should become an Episcopal or Archiepiscopal or Chief or Patriarchal See and my meaning is evident and not possible to be mistaken by any that understands the Language and adverts to what he reads Num. 18 But sure I never said that the secular authority hath power to make Bishops and Presbyters and there is no question but this Gentleman knows if he hath read what he answers that in the Tract of Schisme
second Argument Sect. V. Of the Gentiles being S. Paul's Province peculiarly Num. 1 HIs fourth exception is to my producing the words of scripture Gal. 2. 7 9. to the proof of my position Thus Num. 2 But he goes on telling us that the Gentiles exclusively to the circumcision were the lot of S. Paul by S. Peter's own confession his words are for the uncircumcision or Gentiles they were not S. Peter 's Province but peculiarly S. Paul 's c. but look on the place and you shall finde no word of exclusion as pec'iarly is and whereon lieth the whole question so that the Doctors evidence is his own word against the main torrent of scripture on the other side Num. 3 How truly it is suggested that the torrent of the scripture is against me hath already been made manifest in the foregoing sections where the contrary appearances by this Gentleman produced as they are farre enough from a main torrent or from the common force of such or but even of an ordinary stream carrying the whole businesse before them so they are severally examined and allowed as farre as they have any force in them and found perfectly reconcileable with our pretensions Num. 4 And so likewise it hath already been cleared in what sense this Apostle of the Gentiles so styled by himself and so by agreement betwixt the Apostles acknowledged by S. Peter was so peculiarly or exclusively to the Iewes Num. 5 As for his argument drawn onely from hence that in the text to the Galatians there is no word of exclusion that sure is of little force If there were any agreement and division and several assignation of Provinces it must follow that what was said to be one mans Province is his so as it is not the others and so peculiarly and so as farre as that agreement holds exclusively his As in the estate first held in common and then after by agreement divided it hath appeared so evidently that I need adde no more to that matter Sect. VI. Of S. Peter's withdrawing from the Gentile-communion Of the Gentile diet The prudence of S. Peter's action Num. 1 HIs fift Exception concerns an incidental passage about S. Peter and is an actio injuriarum Num. 2 Again saith he see how he wrongs S. Peter and his Iewish Proselytes where he saies he withdrew from all communion with the Gentile Christians Whereas the text expresseth no more than that he withdrew from eating with them that is keeping the Gentile diet Num. 3 What wrong I have done S. Peter and his Gentile Proselytes I am yet to learn nor am I sure that I know wherein this Gentleman placeth the supposed injury But I think it most probable to consist in this that I say he withdrew from all communion with the gentile Christians whereas he conceives that he withdrew onely from keeping the gentile diet Num. 4 But 1. let me demand of this Gentleman what he means by Gentile diet I suppose using those sorts of meats which were by the Jewish law forbidden And if that be acknowledged of S. Peter that he would not thus eat with the Gentiles lest he should seem to offend against the Jewish law then by the same reason he must certainly be supposed to abstain from other communion with them because it was equally against the Iewish law that a Iew should converse with a Gentile as the woman of Samaria tells Christ when he spake to her but to draw him some water Ioh. 4. 9. How said she dost thou being a Iew ask me to drink and it was but water none of the interdicted Gentile diet being a woman of Samaria and either she or the Evangelist renders the reason in as comprehensive termes as mine were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Iewes have no dealings with the Samaritanes and accordingly v. 27. the disciples marvelled that he talked with the woman And therefore certainly Peter did abstain from all those other waies of converse and communion with the Gentiles which the Iewes thought as unlawfull as eating of the Gentile diet or else he failed of the end of his action which is evident what it was a fear of scandalizing his countreymen and from thence a shew of compliance with them lest he should be thought by those that came from Ierusalem to forsake the Iudaical law Num. 5 That the very Preaching to a Gentile which was the loosest degree of communion was according to the Iewish principles as unlawfull as eating any unclean meat using the Gentile diet is plain by Peter's provision Act. 10. 12. where the one is represented by the other and had he not received that vision which made it lawful to him to eat all kinde of meats he acknowledgeth that he durst not have adventured to come to one of another nation v. 28. affirming in as plain words as could be that it was an unlawful thing for a man that was a Iew to keep company or come to one of another nation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which certainly includes all communion and not onely that of the Genile diet Thus unhappy is this Gentleman continually in his objections Num. 6 It were here obvious and easie to shew the opinion of the Antients of the prudence and to kinde of uncharitableness of S. Peters action which would farther evidence how farre I am from wronging S. Peter or his Proselytes in affirming what I affirm of them But the present objection doth not make that necessary I referre the Reader for it to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpretation or Comments of S. Chrysostome who sets it down exactly not as a quarrel but as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an act of prudent managery a wise ordering designed by him and S. Paul as most likely to reduce the Iewes from their errors when he that did thus much to comply with them not for fear of persecution from them but for fear of averting them from Christianity and was herein seemingly opposed by S. Paul the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 11. being not to be rendred he was to be blamed in Paul's opinion but he was blamed by the Gentile Christians made no manner of reply in defense of that compliance with the Iewes and so yeilded that S. Paul was in the right and not the Iudaizers This interpretation of Chrysostome is followed by the Greek Commentators and taken up by Ierome but disliked by Augustine in his Epistles to Ierome and therefore I lay not weight upon it nor have my pretensions any need of it Sect. VII The two plantations of Gentile and Iewish Christians at Antioch Euodius and Ignatius The differences of the Antients about them reconciled The two Bishops at Rome Iewes in England Simon Zelotes Gentium Ecclesia the Church of Iewes as well as Gentiles Num. 1 HAving gained so little by the several steps of his exceptions and the position remaining still firm against all I have lesse reason to suspect what is built upon this foundation in the
insuing sections Yet against them altogether he casts one stone before he will part in those words Num. 2 Vpon this wisely laid ground he would perswade us followed the division of the Bishopricks both in Antioch and Rome but bringing not one word of Antiquity proving this to have been the cause yet is he so certain of it that he will finde a colonie of Iewes even in England for fear S. Peter should have touched a Gentile and yet he cites S. Prosper that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome Num. 3 What force there is in any part of this suggestion I shall not here need to set down at large There be three branches of it 1. That I bring not a word of antiquity to prove what I say that this the cause of the divisions of the Bishopricks both in Antioch and Rome 2. That I will finde a Colonie of Iewes in England 3. That I cite Prosper that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome Num. 4 For the first I desire the Reader to review what is already said in the Tract of Schism c. 4. from § 8. to § 20. and I shall much wonder if he return of this Gentleman's minde that there is not one word there brought out of Antiquity to confirm what I say The short is It is there manifested from Antiquity that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul that there were two Churches there one of Iewish the other of Gentile Christians that in those Churches at the same time sate two distinct Bishops Euodius and Ignatius by which means some appearing difficulties in antient writers are explained Num. 5 To what is there said I shall instead of repeating adde thus much more Of Suidas's words will be easily turned to in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In the reign of Claudius Caesar Peter the Apostle ordained Euodius Bishop at Antioch Of Ignatius the Author of the Constitutions is expresse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius was ordained Bishop there by S. Paul Now seeing in those Acts of Ignatius which are put together by Simeon Metaphrastes Ignatius is said to succeed Euodius as Euodius succeeded Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Anonymus antient writer of the Acts of Ignatius which remains unprinted hath the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius succeeded Euodius and seeing this ordination of Ignatius is also said by Theodores and by Felix III. Bishop of Rome to have been done by the hand of Saint Peter This seeming difference is removed by Ioannes Malela Antiochenus who thus sets down the whole matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Peter went to Rome passing by Antioch the great Euodius Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch happened to die and Ignatius who was as was said first constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there received the Bishoprick that I suppose must now be of the Iewish Province also over which Euodius had been in his life time S. Peter ordaining and enthroning him And so that is become most clear which S. Chrysostome said of this Ignatius that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the hands of the blessed Apostles in the plural first of Paul then of Peter had been laid on Ignatius Num. 6 The other part which concerned Rome * was so cleared by the words of Epiphanius who saith of Peter and Paul both that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles and Bishops at Rome and so many other evidences produced to the same purpose from the inscription on their tombs by Gaius contemporary to Pope Zephyrinus by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth by Prosper by the seals of the Popes and so again by the Ecclesiastick story that makes Clemens S. Peters Deacon and successor in the Bishoprick and Paul's that sure there can be no need of farther proofs or testimonies from Antiquity in this matter Num. 7 Whilst in the mean other Churches are * instanced in particularly the Churches of Asia wherein S. Paul and S. Iohn had all the command and S. Peter had nothing to doe whether in planting or governing them which alone is sufficient to carry the whole matter against S. Peter's universal Pastorship and no word is by this Gentleman replied to that so considerable a part of my probation Onely instead of it a farre more compendious way that of the scornfull or fastidious scossing at my wisely laid ground as he pleaseth to call it and adding that I bring not one word of Antiquity c. Num. 8 As to the second branch of his suggestion that I will finde a colonie of Iewes in England that is no where said by me Onely thus that upon supposition if the saying of Simeon Metaphrastes speaking of S. Peter's preaching and ordaining Bishops in England Neronis 12 should be thought to have truth in it it must be extended no farther than the Iewes which might at that time be dispersed there Num. 9 Where as my conclusion from that supposition is founded in the analogie that as where S. Paul and S. Peter met in any plantation they divided their Province c. so in reason it ought to be where S. Peter and Simon Zelotes or Ioseph of Arimathea met in like manner so all that of the Iewes in England I there affirm is onely this that it was possible they that were dispersed in so many regions might be some of them dispersed in Britannie which how improbable soever it may appear at that time is sure as probable as that S. Peter preached and ordained Bishops in Britannie and in consequence to that onely it was that I made the supposition of the possibility of it knowing it the affirmation of our Antiquaries that Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes 't is possible also that Simeon Metaphrastes might mistake Simon Peter for him and then that matter is at an end planted the faith in this Island Num. 10 As for his last suggestion that I cite Saint Prosper that both S Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome I desire the truth of it may be considered by the words which I cite from him In ipsa Hierusalem Iacobus Ioannes apud Ephesum Andreas caeteri per totam Asiam Petrus Paulus Apostoli in urbe Roma Gentium Ecclesiam pacatam unamque posteris tradentes ex dominicâ pactione sacrârunt James at Jerusalem John at Ephesus Andrew and the rest through all Asia Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the Nations What Nations were these sure of Jewes as well as Gentiles else Jerusalem could not be any part of them no nor John's converts at Ephesus for they were Iewes and therefore this Gentleman did not doe well to substitute the word Gentiles for Nations and yet could not without doing so have made this exception to my words Num. 11 And so much for exceptions to my first evidence against the Vniversal Pastorship of Saint