AN ANSWER To the most material parts of Dr. HAMOND'S Book of Schism: Or a defence of the Church OF ENGLAND, Against exceptions of the Romanists: Written in A Letter from a Catholic Gent. to his friend in ENGLAND.  
LONDON, Printed Anno Dom. 1654.   

AN ANSWER To the most material parts of Doctor hamond's Book of Schism, etc.  
SIR,  
YOu have been pleased to send me Doctor hamond's Book of Schism, 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 some 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 Schism, 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 add little to what hath been upon that subject of Schism said by him, whom you style 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 laws, which I think to make appear to you or any indifferent Judge, and which I will do rather upon some observations of several passages in his book then consideration of the whole, which I will leave for some other who hath more leisure, in the mean time I must say with the Poet, speaking of some Lawyers in his time, Fures, ●●t Pedio, Pedius quid? Crimina raris libratin Antithetis: The Roman Catholic says to Doctor Hamond, You are an Heretic, you are a Schismatic, & Doctor Hamond replies good English, some Criticisms, much grief, with many citations out of antiquity indifferent to both parts of the question: but to draw near your satisfaction: his first Chap. is for the body of it common to both parts, 
Sect. 9  yet I cannot omit one strange piece of logic at the end of it, where he concludeth, that the occasion or motive of Schism is not to be considered, but only the fact of Schism, of which position I can see no connection to any premises going before, and itself is a pure contradiction, for not a division but a causeless division is a Schism and how a division can be showed to be unreasonable, and causeless without examining the occasions, and motives, I do not understand, nor (with his favour) as I think he himself.  
Much of the second Chap. is likewise common to both, 
Sect. 3.  only he slightly passeth over the distinction of Heresy and Schism, as if he would not have it understood that all Heresy is Schism, though some Schism be no Heresy, 
Sect. 6.  again treating of Excommunication he easily slideth over this part, that wilful continuance in a just Excommunication maketh Schism, what he calls Mr. Knolls Concession, I take to be the public profession of the Roman, or Catholic Church, and that nature itself teacheth all rational men, that any Congregation that can lie, and knoweth not whether it doth lie or no, in any proposition: cannot have power to bind any particular to believe what she sayeth, neither can any man of understanding have an obligation to believe what she teacheth farther than agrees with the rules of his own reason: Out of which it followeth, that the Roman Churches binding of men to a profession of faith (which the Protestants and other Heretical 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, tyrannical, and a selfe-condemnation to the binder's: so that the state of the question will be this, Whether the Catholic or Roman Church, be infallible or no, for she pretendeth not to bind any man to tenets or beliefs 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 himself, for he laboureth to persuade that the Protestant may be certain of some truth, against which the Roman Catholic 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 meek 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 adversary, as no King can show for his Crown, and much less any other person or persons for any other thing) the persuasion of infallibility; all the pledges that Christ hath left to his Church for motives of Union: on the other side uncertain 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 uncertain, 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 return if he be out of it: for if infallibility be the ground of the Church's power to command belief, as she pretends no other, no time, no separation within memory of History, can justify a continuance out of the Church: You may please to consider then, how solid this Doctor's 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 certain suppositions (that follow there) The question is whether a Protestant be a schismatic, because a Protestant; and he will prove he is not a Scismatique, because he goeth consequently to Protestant, that is Schismatical grounds: I pray you reflect, that not to acknowledge the Church to be infallible is that for which we charge the Doctor with Schism, and Heresy in Capite, and more than for all the rest he holds distinct from us, for this principle taketh away all belief, and all ground of belief, and turneth it into uncertainty and Weathercock 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 leap the question, but either prove this is not sufficient to make him a Schismatic (i) and an heretic too, let him acknowledge he is both.  
In his third Chap. what is chiefly to be noted to our purpose, is, that his division is insufficient, for he maketh Schism to be only against Monarchical power or against fraternal charity, which is very much besides the principles of those Protestants who pretend so much to the authority of Counsels, me thinks he should have remembered there might be Schism against Consiliatory, authority, whether this be called so when the Council actually sitteth, or in the unanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches, so that the Doctor (supposing he concluded against the Pope) hath not concluded himself no Schismatic, being separated from the Catholic 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 controversy, until he concludes that certainly the Roman patriarchy did not extend itself to all stately and this he does out of a word in Rufinus, which he supposeth to be taken in a special propriety of Law, whereas indeed that Author's knowledge in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such belief, especially learned men saying the contrary.  
Than he telleth you that the Office of Primats and Patriarches was the same, 
Sect: 22.  only authorising 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, than he saith there was no power over the Patriarches, his proof is because the Emperor used his secular Authority in gathering of Counsels, concluding that because the Pope did not gather general Counsels, therefore he had no Authority over the Universal Church, which how unconsequent that is, I leave to your judgement, 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 Ancients, the only schism which is when one breaketh from the whole Church of God, for though a breach made from the immediate superior, 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 sense 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 Catholic ought too prove, that his Church, or Pope hath an Universal Primacy, for it being granted that in England the Pope was in quiet possession of such a Primacy, the proof that it was just, belongeth not to us more than to any K. who received his Kingdom from his Ancestors, a time out of mind, to prove his pretention to the Crown just: for quiet possession of itself is a proof, until the contrary be convinced: as who should Rebel against such a King were a Rebel, until he shown 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, lieth upon the Protestants now as freshly, as the first day of the breach, and will do so until the very last, as for his proofs which he calls 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 show 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 Mathias was to have, though the Scripture itself 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 Council 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 sense, for the words are like, and yet the Scripture teacheth us that where ever he came, 
Sect: 7.  he preached first to the sense; 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 Peter's own confession, his words are for the uncircumcision, or Gentiles they were not Saint Peter's province, but peculiarly Saint Paul's, &c. but look on the place, and you shall find no word of exclusion as the word peculiarly is, and whereon lieth the whole question, so that the Doctor's 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 says 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 persuade us followed the division of the Bishoprics 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 colony of Jews even in England, for fear St. Peter should have touched a Gentile, and yet he citys 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 Keys, 
Sect: 20.  which he sayeth were given equally to the Apostles, Matt: 28. yet confesseth the Keys 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 persuade the World that the Catholic Church holdeth, none had the Keys but Saint Peter, calling it a peculiarity, and enclosure of Saint Peter, as if the other Apostles had them not, which is calumny, 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 Judgement, he explicates to rule, or preside in the Church, his quibbling about the Word is so light a thing, as it is not worth consideration, the sense 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 alleged for Saint Peter's 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 show the answer was naught, as the answering to impeach the Objector: but who understands the principles of Catholic Faith, knows that as well for other points of our Faith, as for this of Saint Peter's supremacy, we rely not only upon such places of Scripture; next he urgeth that if the succession to Saint Peter were the base of the Pope's supremacy, 
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 privilege 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 divesting himself, since there cannot be two heads to one body, therefore this Authority and privilege of Saint Peter can rest, 
Sect: 4.  & be no where but where he died. Then he tells you that the dignity, or precedence of the Bishop of Rome is surely much more fitly deduced by the Council of Chalcedon from this, that Rome was then the Imperial City, or ordinary Residence of the Emperor: a very wise Judgement, 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 Council.  
Seventhly, 
Sect: 5.  he cavilleth at the privilege of Supreme Magistracy, calling it a method of security beyond all amulets: then he tells us of Antiochs being equal to Rome, and that Constantinople desired but the same privileges against the very nature of the story, for Constantinople being then a Patriarchy, if that made it equal to Rome as this Doctor feigneth, what did it pretend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for? seeing the Dr. assumes before that all Patriarches were equal, neither Rome itself, and less Antioch had cause to complain.  
As for the Canon of Ephesus, 
Sect. 6.  touching the Archbishop of Cyprus, it plainly showeth that the Metropolitans were subordinate to the Patriarches, seeing this case of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case, the reason given doth show that the superiority of Patriarches 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 patriarchal 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 persuade us that Justiniana prima, and Carthage were made exempt Cities by the Emperor, and seethe 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 Patriarches; 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 occasion 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 full of words as empty 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, etc. 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 than his understanding of our principles, but to come to some matter.  
His first Argument is that this Island was converted before Saint Augustine's 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 all that Saint Paul converted, 
Sect: 8.  were obliged to be under him, truly if it were to purpose I believe 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 Pope's title, but aggravation of the scism.  
3ly: He said it was in the Emperor's power to constitute Patriarches: 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 dependency on the nature of Patriarches, 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 well 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 Apocryphal Decree of Valentinian the third, for giving of privileges 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 Bishop's consents were pre-demanded, or pre-ordered, as in the counsel of Chalcedon, can 17. it is ordered that the Church should translate their Bishoprics 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 Reigns 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 proved 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 Pope's authority in the sense he calls him Pope, is not properly patriarchal, nor hath any dependency upon, or from, change of places made by the command of Prints.  
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 wherein 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 England's 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 Parliament, 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 paralleled 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 thread, the praemunire, which did hang over their heads, though in the conclusion of that Sect: he says we ought to judge charitably, viz. that they did not judge for fear nor temporal Interests: yet after waves the advantage of that charitable judgement, & saith, That if what was determined were falsely determined by the King and Bishops, than the voluntary and free doing it will not justify, 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 pretensions for the Pope's Supremacy 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. Augustine's conversion, or upon concession from some of our Kings, etc. To which I answer, that we rely 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 grateful consideration from us. And on the 3d. not as a concession, but as a just acknowledgement of what was necessary 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, than Saxons, to the Christian Religion made by Austin the Monk sent hither by Pope Gregory for that purpose: until that good King Henry the 8th, out of scrupulosity of conscience (no doubt) was pleased to cut the guordian knot of those bonds within which all his Ancestors limited themselves; neither shall all that the Doct. and his fellows have said, or can say, justify themselves so, but that such a possession as I here speak of will convince them of schism, though all those replies which by ours have been 40 times made to every one of those Arguments the Doctor, uses should 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 sense, 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 years, a time that no King in the world can pretend to by succession from his Ancestors for possession of his Crown, and yet I believe 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 show writings evidently concluding for him 13, 14, 15, or 1600 year ago, how much more if he could show 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 Mary's titular retaining of the Supremacy until 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 Legate which in all Catholic times and countries' hath been practised and thought lawful, 
Sect: 13.  King Edward a child of nine years old fell into the hands of wicked ambitious Traitors, who knowing the Kingdom affected for Religion's sake to Queen 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 rapture in H: the 8th. time, spread and nestled themselves in many parts of England, 
Sect: 15.  Queen Elizabeth being by Act of Parliament recorded a bastard, and so pronounced by two Popes, and therefore mistrusting all her Catholic 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 advice of men partly infected with Calvinisme or Lutheranisme, partly ambitious of making their fortunes cast upon that desperate Council of changing Religion, desperate, I say, for see amongst what a number of Rocks she was, in consequence of that Council forced to sail, witness her adhering 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 wind and weather fought against the Spanish Armado, in all likelihood she had been ruined, especially her Catholic Subjects being so provoked as they were by most cruel and bloody 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 justify the ordination of Queen Elizabeth's 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 years unknown amongst the Clamours against the flagrant fact, and no permission given to Catholics to examine the ingenuity of it, but howsoever it is nothing to our purpose, for whatsoever material mission they had by an external 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 says his whole desires relies: which is that because the recession from the Roman Church was done by those by whom, and to whom only 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 Unity; 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 Clergy men, descent 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 Patriarches, is it schism? I think he must say, No: if a Patriarch descent from the first, but agree with the rest, is it schism? No: if a Nation, or a Bishop descent from the rest of the general Council, is it schism? still I believe 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 special force and efficacy 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 Catholic professeth more, so that by the word few he meaneth enough to form a Religion, and Christian life, and will show 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 jealousy, as he saith Grocius was, I cannot but admire indeed the great temper he professeth men of his Religion have, in choosing of Doctrines, to wit, 
Sect: 7.  their submission to the three first Ages, and the four first Counsels, but I confess 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 piece 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 Council 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 controversy, but where do they find Christ's Church should be Judge in three Ages, and fail in the fourth, or that the Counsels in the fifth Age should be sound, but not the Fathers.  
In his 9th. Chapter he pretendeth the Roman Catholic Church, is cause of his division, because they desire communion, and cannot be admitted, but under the belief, 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 outlawed, 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 will 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 itself 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 saith, we judge 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 Judgement 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 belief may come unto them: but since they deny they are schismatics, and offer to prove it, we must not say it: yet I think we ought until we have cause to believe them, since our highest tribunal the Church's voice, from which we have no appeal, hath passed Judgement against them.  
In the last Chapter he compiaineth of the Catholics 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 Catholic, who hath, or undoubtedly is persuaded 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 settled, I say if this Catholic believe 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 will 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 Parliament and Convocation, so that there was as much authority to pull them down, as to set them up, but it will be replied that though they are pulled down, yet are they still 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 laity, and so no character can be made of any Bishop as head, and Pastor, and of the people as body, 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, whereas indeed that Author's knowledge in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such belief, especially learned men saying the contrary.  
But we account ourselves Bishops, and Priests not from an authority, dependant upon Princes, or inherited from Augustus, or new, but from Peter, and Paul, & so shall 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 will join with him if he produce Fructus dignes penitentiae, especially if he acknowledge the infallibility of the Church, and supremacy of the Pope, the former is explicated sufficiently in divers Books, the latter is expressed in the Council of Florence, in these words, viz We desire that the Holy Apostolical See, and the Bishop of Rome have the primacy over all the World, and that the Bishop of Rome is successor to St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and truly Christ's 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 f●● power to feed, direct, and govern the Catholic Church: so far the Council: without obeying this, the Dr: is a Schismatic; & without consing the other an Heretic, but lee him join with us in these, all the rest will follow.  
Thus Sir, you have my sense 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. Brussels the 30 March, 1654.  
FINIS.