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
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
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