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
to our purpose to dispute here only this I say that he seems neither to understand the question nor proves what he would he understandeth nor the question which hath no dependancie on the nature of Patriarchs or rearms of gratitude but on the donation of Christ he proves not what he would for he produceth only the act of an Emperor accounted tyrannical towards the Church without proof or discussion whether it was wel or ill done which was requisire to make good his proof neither doth he say whether the thing were done or no by the consent of Bishops especially since the Pope was an actor in the business he addeth an Apocriphal Decree of Valentinian the third for giving of priviledges purely Ecclesiastical to the Bp of Havenna which out of his liberality he makes a Patriarch but on the whole matter this is to be observed that generally the Bishops consents were pre-demanded or pre-ordered as in the counsel of Calcedon can 17. it is ordered that the Church should translate their Bishopricks according to the Emperors changing of his City and when the Emperors did it it is said they did it according to the power given them to wit by the Church so that a few examples to the contrary produced in the Raigns of headstrong and tyrannical Princes as the most of those were noted to be under whom they are urged and as they did The Conqueror was prov'd nothing and if they did yet cannot they be taken as testimonies when these matters of fact are only so attributed to Princes as no way to exclude the Church but whatsoever it was it doth not at all appertian to the question since the Popes authority in the sence he cals him Pope is not properly patriarchal nor hath any dependencie upon or from change of places made by the command of Printes In his 7th Chap. he intends a justification of the breach Begun in H. 8. whereof as he doth not teach the infamous occasion and how to his dying day the same King desired to be reconciled as also that it was but the coming two days short of a Post to Rome which hindered that the reconcilement was not actually made as may be seen in my Lo of Charberies book fol. 368 and that the moderate Protestants curse the day wherin it was made so the very naming of H 8th is enough to confute all his discourse one of the darlings of his Daughter having given him such a character as hath stamped him for Englands Nero to future posterity Sir Walter Raughley in Preface to History of the World and as it was said of Nero in respect of Christian Religion so might it be of him respecting the unity of the Church viz it must be a great good which he began to persecute and abolish and as for the Acts passed in the Universities Convocation or Parlament let the blood shed by that Tyrant bear witness what voluntary and free Acts they were especially those two upon his Seneca and Burbey Bishop Fisher and the Chancellor More that he might want nothing of being throughly parallel'd to Nero. But me thinks the Doctor differs not much in this seeming tacitly to grant the Bishops were forced awed by that noted sword in a slender threed the praemunire which did hang over their heads though in the conclusion of that Sect he saies we ought to judge charitably viz. that they did not judge for fear nor temporal Interests yet after waves the advantage of that charitable judgment saith That if what was determined were falsly determined by the King and Bishops then the voluntary and free doing it will not justifie and if it were not then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was their duty so to determine and conclude that they were unwilling laying the whole weight of the Argument upon this that the pretentions for the Popes Supremacie in England must be founded either as Successor to St. Peter in the Universal Pastorship of the Church so including England as a Member thereof or upon paternal right respecting St. Augustines conversion or upon concession from some of our Kings c. To which I answer that we relye on the first as the foundation and corner stone of the whole building On the 3d. as an action worthy the Successor of St. Peter which requires a gratefull consideration from us And on the 3d. not as a concession but as a just acknowledgment of what was necessarie to 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 St. Peter is head and governor of the universal 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 8th out of scrupulositie of conscience no doubt was pleased to cut the guordian knot of those bonds within which all his Ancestors limitted themselves neither shal al that the Doct. 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 schism though all those replyes which by ours have been 40 times made to everie one of those Arguments the Doct uses shold bear but equal weight in the scale which we think hoyses it up into the air for the arguments must be demonstrative clear to men of common sence that must overthrow such a possession and therefore it is that the Puritans who are much less friends to the Church of Rome then to the Church of England were all disputing out of Antiquity and confess Napier on the Revelation that the Church of Rome hath born a sway without any debatable contradiction over the Christian world 1260 yeers a time that no King in the world can pretend to by succession from his Ancestors for possession of his Crown and yet I beleeve the Doctor would conclude those Subjects guilty of Rebellion which should go about to deprive such a King of his Crown though he could not shew writings evidently concluding for him 13 14 15 or 1600 yeer ago 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 Sect 11. Queen Maries titular retaining of the Supremacie untill she could dispose the disordered hearts of her subjects to get it peaceably revoked is no authority for the Doctor she never pretending it to be lawfully done but that she could not do otherwise and by the refusing of a Legat which in all Catholick times and Countreys hath been practised and thought lawfull Sect 13. King Edward a childe of nine yeers old fell into the hands of wicked ambitious Traitors who knowing the Kingdom affected for Religions sake to Queen