Selected quad for the lemma: friend_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A45460
|
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.
|
Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.
|
1654
(1654)
|
Wing H598; ESTC R9274
|
139,505
|
188
|
102. to the Emperor Michael that if he doubted of or disbelieved any thing that had been there resolved he should command a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declaration or explication to be sent him from old Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how from of old and from the beginning it had been delivered by tradition of Fathers adding that that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the uppermost of the Churches of God of which Peter was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first that sate Bishop there unto whom Christ said Thou art Peter c. But all this still amounts to no more but that Rome was the prime Apostolick See that might very probably explicate a difficulty to the Emperour by telling what had been from time to time delivered and believed in that Church Num. 29 Fourthly the words of the same Theodorus Studita again in his Epistle to Naucraticus which speaks of some that had broken off themselves from the body of Christ from the chief See in which Christ placed the Keyes of that faith against which the gates of hell the mouthes of hereticks had not should not prevail But then still supposing his testimonie were authentick this is no more but that they which divided from the true doctrine which he supposed to be at Rome did in his opinion break off themselves from the body of Christ that Rome again was the prime See that it had the Keyes of knowledge and faith intrusted to it by Christ at the Apostles founding a Church there but this not exclusively to other Churches which doubtlesse had those Keyes as well as she that the faith of Christ should never be utterly destroyed by hereticks Num. 30 Fifthly the words of Arcadius a Bishop in the third Councel that of Ephesus proposing that the words of Coelestine the Pope who was to be named with all reverence Bishop of the Apostolicall See should be read that they might see what care he had of all Churches and why might not the like be said of any other truly Christian Bishop And so the like speech again of Cyrill of Alexandria that the letter of Coelestine the most holy Bishop of the holy Apostolick Church a title which belonged and was ordinarily given to other Sees beside that of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be read with due honour or respect but sure that doth not prove his supreme power over all the Churches of God Num. 31 Lastly the words of the Emperor's letter called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a divine letter in the Councel of Chalcedon that the most blessed Bishop of the city of Rome to whom antiquity hath given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 priesthood over all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may have a place and power to judge of faith and of Priests from whence he roundly concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Seeing then he hath power to judge of Faith and Priests he is justly defined by the Councel of Florence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the teacher of all Christians Num. 32 This being the last and most probable and indeed onely Testimonie to justifie with any colour of reason the definition of that Councel it is not amisse to consider it a little and with that to conclude also the debate with this Gentleman as Joseph Methonensis there did with the Bishop of Ephesus And if we turn to the Acts of the Councel of Chalcedon we shall soon discern the full weight of it Num. 33 There in the first part num 25. we shall finde this Letter styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sent by Valentinian the Emperour to Theodosius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he would command a Synod to be called in the parts of Italy This then was the subject of the Letter and this the occasion A second Synod had lately been held at Ephesus in which the heresie of Eutyches had received some assistance Upon this Pope Leo and his Synod of Bishops met at Rome writes earnestly to the Emperor Valentinian that he will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a General Councel to be called in the parts of Italy that may remove and mollifie all offences The same he again proposes to the Emperour Theodosius there desiring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a special Councel to be convened in the parts of Italy Hereupon soon follows a letter of Valentinian to Theodosius to the same purpose in condescension to Leo's request and in it those very words recited by Joseph Methonensis in defence of the Councel of Florence to no other sense but this that such a Councel might be convened in Italy to review and reform what had been done amisse in that second Councel of Ephesus Num. 34 This therefore is the meaning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he may have a place and power that some place may be assigned him and the Bishops to meet in Councel that he may have power or faculty or Commission to sit not he by himself but he and the Bishops in Councel and when they sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to judge of faith and Priests as in all Councels it is done to define what is the true faith opposed by hereticks and what persons Bishops or others are fit to be censured for any thing done or taught by them Num. 35 This is the plain and onely importance of the place to which all the rest of the Epistle accords that an Vniversal Councel should be called in Italy wherein the Pope was doubtlesse to preside and he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all other Bishops also being convened from the whole world should consider and define what the true faith required And so this is a faire testimonie to prove that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ the Father and teacher of all Christians The Conclusion Num. 1 I Am now come to the close of this Gentleman's Answer in these words Thus Sir you have my sense of Doctor Hammond's Book in all the particulars which I think to the purpose my time nor the brevity fit for a Letter not permitting I should be more methodical and doe rest Your friend and humble servant B. P. Bruxels the 30 March 1654. Num. 2 Here he is pleased largely enough to assume the office of an Aristarchus and to involve under no light censure of impertinency at the least the farre greatest part of that Treatise of Schisme for certainly that which he hath not offered any Answer to is such and yet he here undertakes to have given his sense in all the particulars which he thinks to the purpose which must conclude it his opinion that all other particulars are not to the purpose This indeed is a performance somewhat above the promise of the title page which obliged him to an Answer of the most material parts of that Treatise And it were very easie to shew that there is no degree of truth in either of these that on the contrary he hath not offered any word of Reply to the most material
be managed by that Abbot than thus to referre to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councels of Nice and Antioch and Chalcedon and Ephesus had done in the like controversies to tell Augustine that the British Christians had alwaies from their first plantation been under a British Primate and to call the British Primate by that title which had most antiently belonged to him i. e. Bishop of Caerleon and not by the later of Landaffe or the yet later of S. Davids What this Author here objects against the former of these answers saying 1. That this is not proved And 1. that it implies a contradiction to say the See was translated and the former title still retained Translation importing the taking a new and desertion of the old title is no way applicable to this second answer which consequently remains in full force and therefore I need not farther attend to it And in relation to the former answer It is farre from the promised clearnesse of demonstration For as to the first part of it the thing may be true though it be not proved the contrary must be proved by him that promiseth clear or demonstrative confutations And for the second it must be founded in some new notion of Contradiction which my Logick hath not acquainted me with for sure he that saith the See was translated and the former title retained doth neither say that the See was translated and not translated which is the only form of a Logical contradiction nor that the former title was retained and not retained Nor consequently can I discern the least inconvenience much lesse contradiction either direct or by way of implication that the Metropolitical See being translated from Caerleon to another city the Metropolitan should still retain his original title that of Bishop of Caerleon Other exceptions he proceeds to adde but those so farre again from being according to promise demonstrative evidences against this testimonie that they are no way worthy to be attended to First that Dinoth would probably have answered in Latine and to that I have already replied that I may well grant he did so and consequently that both the Welch and English in Mr. Moston's MS. were translations of that Latine Secondly that the words in Welch rendred whom you name to be Pope are not rightly translated In this again I cannot contend having no knowledge in that language but as before I followed Sir Henry's translation and finding it not very clear did endevour to expresse his meaning by a just Paraphrase and thereby happily rendred the true sense of the place so if I should now believe my teacher again this Author that undertakes to correct Sir Henry's translation it would not be impossible so to render the words as should bear a very commdious sense and perfectly agreeable to the notion I formerly had of them But being not secure that my leader H. T. whom now I discern to be no Welch-man hath really the skill in that language which his animadversions pretend to I thought it more reasonable to consult some other more knowing guide and am now from a judicious hand assured that there is an error in the distinction between Daad and yw gleimio which being taken away the true rendring of the whole is this Et aliam obedientiam quam istam non agnosco ego cujusquam esse quem vos nominat is Papam vel patrem patrum vendicare postulare And any other obedience than that I acknowledge not to be any mans or to belong to any man whom ye name Pope or Father of Fathers to challenge and require This is plain sense and still perfectly agreeable to the understanding I formerly had of the words and I doubt not but upon the most Critical examination it will be found to be the most literal rendring of them The third of the no good sense of the English is already answered also by adhering to that better translation which is as perfectly fit for our turns as the other was imagined to be and much more intelligible and clear as appeared in the last number The fourth is that the words used of the Bishop of Caerleon who is to oversee under God over us makes against the â—ym of the Prelatick reformers and particularly against me who labour to support the King's Supremacie against the Pope whereas these words exclude the King as well as the Pope But certainly there is no force in this for Augustine's demand or question being onely of that obedience and subordination which belonged to the supreme Bishop whether that were the Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Caerleon and not at all inquiring into the nature or extent of the regal or imperial power there being no occasion to suggest any such inquirie the Abbot's answer can in no probability be extended any farther than the question extended i. e. to the asserting the Prime Episcopal power to belong to the Metropolitan of Caerleon or S. David's without any subordination to the Pope of Rome As for that which in the fift place he adds of the miracle and divine vengeance in Bede and so concludes his Appendix to that I have spoken already in that which I thought meet to premise to this debate and so I have no more to adde by way of answer to his exceptions but that I cannot sufficiently wonder that this Author so recommended to the the Reader by his learned Friend in the front of his Book should make it his solemn businesse to invalidate this one supernumerary testimony being withall no better provided with arguments to promise him successe in it The End ERRATA PAge 4. line 28. after him adde p. 15. l. 24. after side re or p. 33. marg l. 3. re Apolog l. 29. after must adde p. 36. l. 32. re nomina p. 40. l. 12. re 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 13. re 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 83. l. 34. re 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 15. l. 24. after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dele p. 19. l. 33. after else adde p. 90. l. 17. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 re 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 20. for the re then p. 96. l. ult re 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 108. l. 30. re testifie p. 111. marg l. 11. re 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 120. l. 26. re it as p. 121. l. 11. re Campegius p. 129. l. 8. re 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 6. re yet larger p 133. l. 17. re by this p. 135. l. 6. re schism in him p. 136. l. 35. re 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 137. l. 29. re and shall l. 32. re extitit p. 138. l. ult re is one p. 141. l. 7. re con-l 24. re our innocence p. 148. l. 36. re is utterly p. 150. l. 7. re this p. 155. l. 11. re the fall p. 160. l. 36. re 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 161. l. 11. re Naucratius * Ch 7. Sect. 1. * l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Apoll 2. ad Imp Const Edit Par Tom 1. p. 756. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paris Ed t. 1. p. 827. C. * Concil tom 1. p. 266. * Cont Cels l. 3. He urgeth Gratian too * Decret Grat par 1. dist 92. c. 2. * Of Schism p. 74. Sect. 5. * A. Gellius l. 18. c. 3. * Tract of Schism c. 4. §. 7. c. 4. §. 8 c. Sect. 8 9. * Savil ed t. 3. p. 730 731. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * l. 7. c. 47. †in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Epist ad Zenon * in Chron MS. Oxon l. 10. * Enâ—om Ignat Sect. 9. Sect. 12. Sect. 14. Sect. 20. Sect. 2. * Annot on Mat. 19. d. and Power of Keyes c. 5. §. 13. Sect. 5. * Colon Edit fol. 118. * Ep â—4 fol. 119. †Ep 55. fol. 120. * Culpam quam de augendâ potestate alienâ ut asseris adhortatione contraxeras etsi non ad sola Clericorum sonfilia transtulisses Leo. Ep 71. * Edit Paris Tom 3. p. 504. c. * Ibid p. 506. B. * Lib. 2. in fine * Epist Concil Chalt ad Leon Pap Concil t. 3 p. 475. B. * subscript Eleuâ—herii Chalced Ep Ibid p. 46. F. * Concil â— 3. p 460. p. 461. D. * ad Maxim Antioch Ep 62. fol 124. * Tom 6. An 454 N. 13 c. * p. 453. p. 463. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Tom. 6. Ann 451. Num 143. Decret par 1. dist 193. c. Legimus * de author Eccl 7. * Ann 454. Num 13 c. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 1. Sect. 2. * Neque suscipere dogma perversii vellent neque versutiam nefariae persuasioniâ— refutare verbis certando sufficevent Bed l. 1. c. 17. * Bed l. 1. c. 12 13. Sect. 8. * Balsam in Concil in Trull Can. 38. * 1 Concil Chal. c. 17. * Ib. pag. 342. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 12. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Balsam in Can 12. * in Chalced Can. 12. * Jam. 1. 17. 3. 15 17. c. Begun in Hen. 8. Sir Walter Raleigh in Prefito Histor of the World Napier on the Revelation * Eccl Hist l. 1. c. 27. * Ib l. 2. c. 2. * B. Gre Ep ex regist l. 7. Indict 1. c. 30. * par 1. dist 99. Ecce * l. de diff Reg et Eccl Potest Sect. 4. Sect. 5. * Epist ad Epict. * Sess 10. Ib. p. 641. D. Hooker 's Eccl Pol * Annot. on the place * Hieron qu. 11. ad Alga◠†Atheneus l. 1. * Golizius in Thesau Dio in Adriano Prudentius * Rom. 11. 2. * Conc p. 858 Paris * Jose thon p cil Fâ— p. 102 * Concil tom 3. p. 25. * Ibid n. 19. p. 19. * Ibid n. 20. p. 20. * l. 3. p. 325. p. 413. * Quod cum adversarii inviti licèt concederent †Cum oblatus BritonisÌ„ sacerdotibus nil curationis horum ministerio cepit * Fertur minitans praedixisse Bede Terruit eos vaticinio futurae super eos calamitatis Sigebert * â—in Dinoth p. 405. p. 405. p. 406 7 8. p. 409. p. 410. * n. 19 20.