AN ANSWER To the most materiall parts of Dr. HAMOND'S Booke of Schisme Or a defence of the Church OF ENGLAND Against exceptions of the Romanists Written in A Letter from a Catholique Gent. to his friend in ENGLAND LONDON Printed Anno Dom. 1654. AN ANSWER To the most materiall parts of Doctor Hamonds Book of Schisme c. SIR YOu have been pleased to send me Doctor Hamonds Book 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 som of my friends in England a good while since of another book written by one Doctor Ferne to the same purpose as also one lately come out of the Bishop of Deries and of this which you have sent me I was wondering what those who call themselves of the Church of England could say to defend them from Schisme but now your favour in 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 bad lawes which I think to make appeare to you or any indifferent Judge and which I will doe rather upon some observations of severall passages in his booke then consideration of the whole which I will leave for some other who hath more leasure in the meane time I must say with the Poet speaking of some Lawyers in his time Fures â—â—t Pedio Pedius quid Crimina raris libratin Antithetis The Roman Catholique sayes to Doctor Hamond You are an Heretick you are a Schismatick Doctor Hamond replies good English some Criticismes much greefe with many citations out of antiquity indifferent to both parts of the question but to draw neere your satisfaction his first Chap. is for the body of it common to both parts Sect. 9. yet I cannot omit one strange peece of logick at the end of it where he concludeth that the occasion or motive of Schisme is not to be considered but only the fact of Schisme of which position I can see no connection to any premises going before and it selfe is a pure contradiction for not a division but a causelesse division is a Schisme and how a division can be shewed to be unreasonable and causelesse without examining the occasions and motives I do not understand nor with his favour as I think he himselfe Much of the second Chap. is likewise common to both Sect. 3. only he slightly passeth over the distinction of Heresie and Schisme as if he would not have it understood that all Heresie is Schisme though some Schisme be no Heresie Sect. 6. againe treating of Excommunication he easily slideth over this part that wilfull continuance in a just Excommunication maketh Schisme what he calls Mr. Knolls Concession I take to be the publique profession of the Roman or Catholique Church and that nature it selfe teacheth all rationall men that any Congregation that can lye and knoweth not whether it doth lye or no in any proposition cannot have power to bind any particular to beleeve what she sayeth neither can any man of understanding have an obligation to beleeve what shee teacheth farther then agrees with the rules of his owne reason Out of which it followeth that the Roman Churches binding of men to a profession of faith which the Protestants and other Hereticall multitudes have likewise usurped if she be infallible is evidently gentle charitable right and necessary as contrariwise in any other Church or Congregation which pretends not to infallibility the same is unjust tyrannicall and a selfe-condemnation to the binders so that the state of the question will be this Whether the Catholique or Roman Church be infallible or no for shee pretendeth not to bynd any man to tenets or beleefs upon any other ground or title By this you may perceive much of his discourse to be not only superfluous and unnecessary but contrary to himselfe for he laboureth to perswade that the Protestant may be certaine of some truth against which the Roman Catholique Church bindeth to profession of error which is as much to say as he who pretendeth to have no infallible rule by which to govern his Doctrine shall be supposed to be fallible and he that pretendeth to have an infallible rule shall be supposed to be fallible at most because fallible objections are brought against him now then consider what a meeke and humble Son of the Church ought to do when of the one side is the authority of Antiquity and possession such antiquity and possession without dispute or contradictions from the adversarie as no King can shew for his Crowne and much lesse any other person or persons for any other thing the perswasion of infallibility all the pledges that Christ hath left to his Church for motives of Union on the other side uncertaine reasons of a few men pretending to learning every day contradicted by incomparable numbers of men wise and learned and those few men confessing those reasons and themselves uncertaine fallible and subject to error certainly without a bias of interest or prejudice it is impossible for him to leave the Church if he be in it or not returne if he be out of it for if infallibility be the ground of the Churches power to command beleefe as she pretends no other no time no seperation within memory of History can justifie a continuance out of the Church You may please to consider then how solid this Doctors discourse is who telleth us for his great evidence that he saith he who do not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make certaine suppositions that follow there The question is whether a Protestant be a Schismatique because a Protestant and he will prove he is not a Scismatique because he goeth consequently to Protestant that is Schismaticall grounds I pray you reflect that not to acknowledge the Church to be infallible is that for which we charge the Doctor with Schisme and Haeresie in Capite and more then for all the rest he holds distinct from us for this principle taketh away all beleefe and all ground of beleefe and turneth it into uncertainty and Weather-cock opinion putteth us iuto the condition to be circumferri omni vento Doctrinae fubmitteh us to Atheism and all sort of miscreancie Let him not then over leape the question but either prove this is not sufficient to make him a Schismatick i and an heritique too let him acknowledge he is both In his third Chap. what is cheefely to be noted to our purpose is that his division is insufficient for he maketh Schisme to
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
Mary to cut off her succession and introduce their own thought fit to strengthen their faction which besides what they might hope from abroad consisted of many Lutherans and Calvenists at home those two Sects having by opportunity of that rupture in H the 8th time spread and nestled themselves in many parts of England Sect 15. Queen Elizabeth being by Act of Parlament recorded a bastard and so pronounced by two Popes and therefore mistrusting all her Catholick Subjects who she feared did adhere to the Queen of Scots title in which she was then likely to be supported by the King of France her Husband was by the advise of men partly infected with Calvinisme or Lutheranisme partly ambitious of making their fortunes cast upon that desperate Councell of changing Religion desperate I say for see amongst what a number of Rocks she was in consequence of that Councel forced to sail witness her adhearing to the Rebels of all her neighbour Kings so provoking them thereby as if the French King had not been taken out of this world and winde and weather fought against the Spanish Armado in all likelihood she had been ruined especially her Catholick Subjects being so provoked as they were by most cruel and bloodie Laws but this by the by though from hence the Reader may judge of reason of changing Religion in her time and what a solid foundation the Church of England hath how far Mr. Mason can justifie the ordination of Queen Elizabeths Bishops Sect 16. I will not now examine but certain it is that the Record if there be such a one hath a great prejudice of being forged since it lay some fifty yeers unknown amongst the Clamors against the flagrant fact and no permission given to Catholicks to examine the ingenuitie of it but howsoever it is nothing to our purpose for whatsoever materiall mission they had by an externall consecration those Bishops who are said to have consecrated them are not as much as pretended to have given them order to preach the Doctrine or exercise the Religion they after did which is the true meaning and effect of mission I cannot end without nothing in his 20 Para the foundation upon which he himself saies his whole defires relyes which is that because the recession from the Romane Church was done by those by whom and to whom onely the power of right belonged legally viz the King and Bishops of this Nation therefore it is no schism that is whatsoever the reason of dividing hath been even to turn Turks or for violating never so fundamental points of Religion yet it had not been schism In his 8th Chapter as far as I understand he divideth schism into formal that is breach of Unitie and material that is breach of Doctrine or Customs in which the Church was united the former he brancheth into subordination to the Pope Sect 4. of which enough hath been said and breach of the way provided by Christ for maintaining the unity of Faith the which he puts in many subordinations without any effect For let us as he Sect 5. if inferior Clergie men dissent from their own Bishops but not from their Metrapolitan in matter of Faith is it schism he will answer No if a Metrapo itan dissent from his Primate but agree with the rest of the Patriarchs is it schism I think he must say No if a Patriarch dissent from the first but agree with the rest is it schisme No if a Nation or a Bishop dissent from the rest of the generall Councell is it schism still I beleeve he will answer No where then is schism provided against or where truly is there any subordination in Faith if none of these are subject and bound to their superiors or Universals in matters of Faith But saith the Doctor the Apostles resolved upon some few heads of speciall force and efficacie to the planting of Christian life through the world and preaching and depositing them in every Church of their plantation Truly I do not know what a Catholick professeth more so that by the word few he meaneth enough to form a Religion and Christian life and will shew us a Church which hath not betrayed the trust deposited for if there be none what availeth this depositing if there be any clear it is that it preserved it by tradition if there be a question whether it hath or no again I demand to what purpose was the depositing so that if the Doctor would speak aloud I doubt he would be subject to as much jealousie as he saith Grocius was I cannot but admire indeed the great temper he professeth men of his Religion have in chusing of Doctrines to wit Sect 7. their submission to the three first Ages and the foure first Councels but I confesse it is a humility I understand not first to profess they know not whether their teachers say true or no that is that they are fallible and then to hold under pain of damnation what they say Another peece of their Humility is in submitting to Ages where very few Witnesses can be found in regard of the rarity of the Authors and the little occasion they had to speak of present controversies A third note of Humility is that whereas the fourth Councel was held about the midst of the fifth Age these lovers of truth will stand to it but not to the fourth Age precedent or that very Age in which it was held so humble they are to submit to any Authority that toucheth not the questions in present controversie but where do they find Christs Church should be Judg in three Ages and fail in the fourth or that the Councels in the fifth Age should be sound but not the Fathers In his 9th Chapter he pretendeth the Roman Catholick Church is cause of his division because they desire communion and cannot be admitted but under the beleef and practise of things contrary to their consciences of which two propositions Sect 4 5. if the second be not proved the first is vain and is as if a subject should plead he were unjustly out-lawed because he doth not desire it now to prove the latter he assumeth that the Protestant is ready to contest his Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by what he means by that I know not for that they will convince their Negatives by any ground a good Christian ought to be concluded by I see nothing less What then wil they contest it by all grounds a good Orthodox Christian ought to be concluded by If they answer in the Affirmative we shall ask them whether Si quis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of their grounds and if they say no we shall clearly disprove their major but then their defence is if any ground or Rule of it self firm and good speaketh nothing clearly of a poine in question they will contest that point by those grounds is not this a goodly excuse In his 11 Chapter he