be only against Monarchicall power or against fraternall charity which is very much besides the principles of those Protestants who pretend so much to the authority of Councells me thinks he should have remembred there might be Schisme against Consiliatory authority whether this be called so when the Councel actually sitteth or in the unanimity of beleefe in the dispersion of the Churches so that the Doctor supposing he concluded against the Pope hath not concluded himself no Schismatick being separated from the Catholique world in this Chap. he telleth us many things some true some not so but all either Common to us both or not appertaining to the controversie untill he concludes that certainly the Roman Patriarchie did not extend it selfe to all stately and this he does out of a word in Rufinus which he supposeth to be taken in a speciall propriety of Law whereas indeed that Authors knowledge in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such beleefe especially learned men saying the contrary Than he telleth you that the Office of Primats and Patriarchs was the same Sect 22. only authorizing that affirmation from an Epistle of Anacletus He urgeth Gratian too the which as soon as occasion serveth he will tell you is of no Authority but fictitious then he saith there was no power over the Patriarchs his proof is because the Emperor used his secular Authority in gathering of Councels concluding that because the Pope did not gather general Councels therfore he had no Authority over the Universal Church which how unconsequent that is I leave to your judgment but I must not forget here what I omitted to insert before that in his division of schism he omitteth the principal if not indeed in the use of the word by the Antients the only schism which is when one breaketh from the whole Church of God for though a breach made from the immediate superiour or a particular Church may in some sort and in our ordinary manner of speaking be called a schism yet that by which one breaketh away from the communion of the whole Church is properly and in a higher sence called schism and is that out of which the present question proceedeth whereas other divisions as long as both parts remain in communion with the universal Church are not properly schisms but with a diminutive particle so that in this division he left out that part which appertained to the Question In the fourth Chapter he pretendeth to examine whether by Christ his donation Saint Peter had a primacy over the Church where not to reflect upon his curious division I cannot omit that he remembers not what matters he handles when he thinketh the Catholick ought to prove that his Church or Pope hath an Universal Primacie for it being granted that in England the Pope was in quiet possession of such a Primacie the proof that it was just belongeth not to us more then to any K. who received his Kingdom from his Ancestors a time out of mind to prove his pretension to the Crown just for quiet possession of it self is a proof until the contrary be convinced as who should Rebel against such a King were a Rebel until he shewed sufficient cause for quitting obedience with this difference that obedience to a King may by prescription or bargain be made unnecessary but if Christ hath commanded obedience to his Church no length of years nor change of humane affairs can ever quit us from this duty of obedience so that the charge of proving the Pope to have no such Authority from Christ lyeth upon the Protestants now as freshly as the first day of the breach and wil do so until the very last as for his proofs which he cals evidences Sect 5. he telleth us first that Saint Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision exclusively to the Uncircumcision or Gentiles to prove this he saith the Apostles distributed their great Universal Province into several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is by his interpretation lesser Provinces and citeth Act. 1. v. 25. where Saint Peter with the other Apostles prayeth God to shew which of the two proposed he was pleased to have promoted to the dignity of being an Apostle this they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this rigorous interpreter saith it signifies the special Province Saint Matthias was to have though the Scripture it self expresseth the contrary saying the effect was that afterward he was counted amongst the Apostles could any man not blinded with error make so wretched an interpretation but he goes on presently adding that Saint Peter in the same place calleth these particular provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and will you know what this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or proper place is read the Text and you shall find that Saint Peter speaketh of Judas his going to Hell to receive his eternal damnation Me thinks you should wonder I can go on without astonishment at such blasphemous explications for sure it can be no less so to abuse the Word of God and after this what do you expect His position is as directly against Scripture as if he had done it on purpose the Scripture telling us how by a special Vision Saint Peter was commanded to preach to Cornelius a Gentile first of all the Apostles and himself in the Councel of Jerusalem protesting the same and yet this Doctor can teach he was made Apostle to the Jews exclusively to the Gentiles though all story say the contrary Again if he were made the Apostle of the Jews exclusively to the Gentiles by the same reason St. Paul was made Apostle of the Gentiles exclusively to the sence for the words are like and yet the Scripture teacheth us that where ever he came Sect 7. he preached first to the sence is not this to make Scripture ridiculous but he goes on telling us that the Gentiles exclusively to the Circumcision were the lot of St. Paul by Saint Peters own confession his words are for the uncircumcision or Gentiles they were not Saint Peters province but peculiarly Saint Pauls c. but look on the place and you shall find no word of exclusion as the word peculiarly is and wheron lyeth the whole question so that the Doctors Evidence is his own word against the main torrent of Scripture on either side Again see how he wrongs St. Peter Sect 8 9. and his Jewish profelites where he saies he withdrew from all communion with the Gentile Christians Whereas the Text expresseth no more then that he withdrew from eating with them that is keeping the Gentile diet upon this wisely laid ground he would perswade us followed the division of the Bishoppricks both in Antioch and Rome but bringing not one word of antiquity proving this to have been the cause Sect 18. yet is he so certain of it that he will find a collonie of Jews even in England for fear St. Peter should have touched a Gentile and yet he cites Saint
Prosper that both Saint Peter and St Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome A second Evidence he bringeth from the donation of the Keyes Sect 20. which he sayeth were given equally to the Apostles Matt 28. yet confesseth the Keyes were especially promised to Saint Peter Matt 16. but performed only in common Matt the 28. which though they may be both true yet is absurdly said for who acknowledgeth a special promise should have found out a special performance which is done Joh 21. Again Sect 21. he would perswade the World that the Catholick Church holdeth none had the Keyes but Saint Peter calling it a peculiarity and inclosure of Saint Peter as if the other Apostles had them not which is calumnie I cannot pass without noting another old interpretation of Scripture in his 20 Sect out of Matthew the 19. speaking of the 12 Thrones at the day of Judgment he explicates to rule or preside in the Church his quibling about the Word is so light a thing as it is not worth consideration the sence being plain that upon Peter the Church was built specially though not with exclusion of others In the fifth Chapter Sect 1. first he lightly passeth over the two most considerable Texts of Scripture fit to be alledged for Saint Peters supremacy viz. Feed my Sheep and thou art Peter because they have no appearance and have been often answered Why no appearance because he and his Fellows say so and is if being as often repeated was not as likely to shew the answer was naught as the answering to impeach the Objector but who understands the principles of Catholick Faith knows that as well for other points of our Faith as for this of Saint Peters supremacy we relie not only upon such places of Scripture next he urgeth that if the succession to Saint Peter were the base of the Popes supremacie Sect 3. Antioch should be the chief See because St Peter sat there wherein to omit his first and second question whereof the first is untrue I answer to the third Negatively that the coustituting a Church and Bishop at Antioch before at Rome did confer no priviledg extraordinary on that Church and the reason is clearly deduced out of his second Quaere because it was before Rome for he could not give any such Authority but by devesting himself since there cannot be two heads to one body therefore this Authority and priuiledg of Saint Peter can rest Sect 4. be no where but where he dyed Then he tels you that the dignity or precedence of the Bishop of Rome is surely much more fitly deduced by the Councel of Calcedon from this that Rome was then the Imperial City or ordinary Residence of the Emperor a very wise Judgment that the quality upon which the unity that is the safety of the Church Universal relies should be planted upon a bottom fallible and subject to fail but the resolution was so shameful that the very Patriarch was ashamed imputed it to his ambitious Clergy who how tumultuary and untuly they were is to be seen in the Acts of the Councel Seventhly Sect 5. he cavilleth at the priviledg of Supream Magistracy calling it a method of security beyond all amulets then he tels us of Antiochs being equal to Rome and that Constantinople desired but the same priviledges against the very nature of the story for Constantinople being then a Patriarchy if that made it equal to Rome as this Doctor faineth what did it pretend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for seeing the Dr. assumes before that all Patriarchs were equal neither Rome it self and less Antioch had cause to complain As for the Canon of Ephesus Sect. 6. touching the Arch-Bishop of Cyprus it plainly sheweth that the Metropolitans were subordinate to the Patriarchs seeing this case of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case the reason given doth shew that the superiority of Patriarchs was by custom received from their Ancestors contrary to that which the Dr before affirmed however it is still nothing to the purpose because the Authority which we say belongs to the Pope is neither Patriarchall nor derived from any institution or custom of the Church but from the institution of Christ Then he goes on with two examples Sect 7. in which he would perswade us that Justiniana prima and Carthage were made exempt Cities by the Emperor and seeth not that his own instance giveth the answer for as in the temporal donation he doth not exempt them from his own subjection so neither from the Popes in spiritual nay nor as much as giveth them the stile of Patriarchs though the Bishop of Constantinople in his own City ordinarily had it Sect 1. In his 6. Chapter he examineth another title peculiar to England viz that our Nation was converted by mission from Rome Sect 1. and this is totally beside the question for no man is so stupid as to pretend Saint Peter or the Church of Rome to have power over the Universal Church because his successors converted England But some pretend a special title of gratitude the violation of which aggravateth the sin of schismatizing from the Church of Rome in our Nation yet no man as far as I can understand thinks this latter Obligation of so high a nature as that for no occation or never so great cause it may not be dispensed with but only press it then when the benefit is slighted Sect 2. or by colourable arguments to the contrary unworthily avoided and yet this Doctor quite mistaking the question frameth an Argument as ful of words as emptie of matter affirming there cannot be two successive titles to possession of the same thing telling us that he who claimeth a Reward as of his own labour and travel must disclaim a donation c. if any passed before and that if a King have right by descent he cannot claim any thing by conquest by which you may see his understanding the Law is not much more then his understanding of our principles but to come to some matter His first Argument is that this Island was converted before Saint Augustines time Sect 4. surely he means by the name of Isleland the Land and Mountains and Trees for it he speak of the Men what hath the conversion of the former Islanders to do with the subjection and duty which the Saxons owe. His next Argument demandeth whether al that Saint Paul converted Sect 8. were obliged to be under him truly if it were to purpose I beleeve there might be proof that Saint Paul expected it but he doth not remember that he could us Saint Paul was Bishop of Rome and so it cometh to the same question but indeed he quite misseth the matter for no body stateth this for the Popes title but aggravation of the scism 3ly He said it was in the Emperors power to constitute Patriarchs whether that be so or not Sect 9. it will not be much
saith we judg them and despise them as to the first I have often wondered and do now that men pretending to learning and reason should therein charge us with want of charity for if our Judgment be false it is error not malice and whether true or false we press it upon them out of love and kindness to keep them from the harm that according to our beleef may come unto them but since they deny they are scismaticks and offer to prove it we must not say it yet I think we ought until we have cause to beleeve them since our highest tribunal the Churches voice from which we have no appeal hath passed Judgment against them In the last Chapter he compiaineth of the Catholicks for reproaching them with the loss 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 Heoker Ecle poll cha 5. most prudent persons confessedly that ever was amongst them to be a building likely to last but 80 years 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 beleeve 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 he hath said before for ask him how doth it remain in being if there be no such Bishops or Presbyters amongst them for his defence against the Church of Rome is that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters from whence it wil follow that as they were set up by a secular authority so are they pulled down and un-bishoped by another secular Authority if it be said the Parliament which pulled them down had not the 3. bodies requisite to make a Parliament no more had that which set them up for the Lords Spirit was wanting both in Parlament and Convocation so that there was as much authority to pul them down as to set them up but it will be replyed that though they are pulled down yet are they stil Bishops viz the character remains with them Alas what is their characters if their mission of Preaching and Teaching be extinguished which follows their jurisdiction which jurisdiction the Doct makes subject to the secular authority so that whatsoever characters their Bishops Presbyters pretend to have they have according to his principles no power over the layity and so no character can be made of any Bishop as head and Pastor and of the people as bodie and flock and consequently their Church is gone and this he does out of a word in Rufinus which he supposeth to be taken in a special propriety of Law wheras indeed that Authors knowledg in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such beleef especially learned men saying the contrary But we account our selves Bishops and Priests not from an authority dependant upon Princes or inherited from Augustus or new but from Peter and Paul so shal stand and continue whatsoever Princes or secular powers decree when they according to their Doctrines and Arguments are not to wonder if they be thrown down by the same Authortly that set them up as the Synagogue was a Church to have an end so is this with theirs difference that the Synagogue was a true Church in reference to a better but this a counterfeit and tyrannical one to punish a better as concerning the Drs. prayer for Peace communion all good People wil joyn with him if he produce Fructus dignes penitentiae especially if he acknowledg the infallibility of the Church and supremacie of the Pope the former is explicated sufficiently in divers Books the latter is expressed in the Councel of Florence in these words viz We desire that the Holy Apostolical See and the Bishop of Rome have the primacie over all the World and that the Bishop of Rome is successor to St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and truly Christs Vicar and head of the whole Church and the Father Teacher of all Christians and that there was given him in St Peter from Christ a fâ—â— power to feed direct ond govern the Catholick Church so far the Councel without obeying this the Dr is a Scismatick without consing the other an Heretick but lee him joyn with us in these all the rest will follow Thus Sir you have my sence of Dr Hammonds 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 do rest Your Friend and humble Servant B. P. Bruxels the 30 March 1654. FINIS