A Reply to the Catholic Gentlemans Answer, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. An Anſwer to the Exceptions made to the eighth Chapter.
Sect. I.
The Diviſion of Schiſme. An Anſwer to many Queſtions about Schiſm, A retortion.
Num. 1 IN proceeding to the view of Chap. 8. this Gentleman without any cauſe is pleaſed to change the diviſion of the ſecond ſort of ſchiſme there handled, into another, which it ſeems was more ſutable to his underſtanding, and then to make two light skirmiſhes againſt the diſcourſe of that Chapter. He begins thus,
Num. 2 In his 8th Chapter, as farre as I underſtand, he divideth Schiſme into formal, that is, breach of unity; and material, that is, breach of Doctrine or Cuſtomes, 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, Sect. 5.For let us ask, if inferior Clergie-men diſſent from their own Biſhops, but not from their Metropolitan, in matter of faith, is it Schiſme? he will anſwer, No: If a Metropolitan diſſent from his Primate, but agree with the reſt of the Patriarchs, is it ſchiſme? 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 General Councel, is it ſchiſm? ſtill I believe he will anſwer, No: Where then is ſchiſme provided againſt? or where truly is there any ſubordination in Faith? if none of theſe are ſubject, and bound to their Superiors or Vniverſals in matters of faith?
Num. 3 What my diviſion there is, will be obvious enough to any man's underſtanding. In the third Chap: the foundation had been laid in the oppoſition betwixt Schiſme and Eccleſiaſtical Vnity, and as the unity was the conſerving all due relations, whether of ſubordination, or equality, wherein each member of Chriſt's Church is concerned one toward another, ſo there were two prime branches of ſchiſme, the one againſt the ſubordination which Chriſt ſetled in his Church, the ſecond againſt the mutual charity, which he left as his Legacy among Chriſtians. And the former of theſe being diſcuſſed at large in order to the preſent debate, in the 8. Chapter, the method led me to the latter of them, to conſider Schiſme, as it is an offence againſt the mutual unity, Peace, and Charity, which Chriſt left, and preſcribed among Chriſtians; And that I might be ſure not to ſtreighten the bounds of this ſort of Schiſm, or omit any thing, that can, by any rule of diſcourſe, be placed in the borders or confines of it, by the meanes either to lay charge on us, or render our Vindication the clearer, I diſtributed it into as many parts, as in my opinion the matter could by any be thought to beare, i. e. into three species,
1. A breach in the Doctrines or Traditions (together with the institutions of Chriſt, his Apoſtles, and the Primitive Church, whether in government, or obſervances.)
2. An offence againſt external peace or communion Eccleſiaſtical.
3. The want of that Charity which is due from every Chriſtian to every Chriſtian.
The firſt of theſe againe ſubdivided and conſidered, 1. in the groſſe, as it is a departing from the rules appointed by Chriſt for the founding and upholding unity of Doctrine, &c. 2. in particular, the aſſerting of any particular doctrine, contrary to Chriſt's and the Apoſtolical pure Churches eſtabliſhment.
Num. 4 The Scheme being thus laid as regular, and as comprehenſive, as I could deviſe 1. here is not one word ſaid to expreſſe any cauſe of diſlike or exception to it; and yet 2. it is quite laid aſide, and another of formal and material Schiſme, &c. ſubſtituted inſtead of it, upon what temptation or deſigne, ſave onelyonly a willingneſſe to gaine ſomewhat by the ſhuffle and confuſion, more than the diſtinctneſſe of diſcourſe could yeild him, I cannot divine.
Num. 5 As it is, I yet diſcern not the particular advantages he had in his intuition, but ſuppoſe them latent and reſerved; For to his ſpecial diſcovery that he means to make by asking (and ſuppoſing anſwers to) many queſtions proportionable to the ſeveral links in the ſubordination, the account will be eaſie enough, that as long as any particular Biſhop remains in the due ſubordination to his Canonical ſuperiors, ſo long the departure of any clergie man that is under his jurisdiction, from that obedience which Canonically he owes him, is in him that is thus guilty of it, an act of ſchiſme.
Num. 6 But then I, when inſtead of departure he puts diſſent (which may belong to light matters, wherein liberty of diſſent from Superiors, is yeilded to all men, or to greater matters, without departing from obedience or Communion) this is not fairly done, this difference having a viſible influence on the matter.
Num. 7 Secondly, when of the inferiour clergie-man's diſſent from his own Biſhop, he makes me anſwer that it is not ſchiſme, if it be not from his Metropolitan, I never gave him my letter of Proxie to doe ſo: But on the other ſide, if the diſſent be ſuppoſed to be improved into a departure (which alone makes ſchiſme) I ſhall not doubt to pronounce it ſchiſme, unleſſe he have firſt made his appeal from his Biſhop to his Metropolitan, and by him and his Councel of Biſhops be adjudged to be in the right, and then if his Biſhop by that judgment be reduced to order, he may not, he cannot again without ſchiſme depart from him.
Num. 8 Thirdly, when from Primates he aſcends to Patriarchs, as if that latter had a power ſuperiour to the former, and again from the l'atriarchs to the firſt Patriarch, i. e. the Biſhop of Rome, this he knows hath no place with us, who acknowledge no power of any Patriarch above a Primate, no ſupremacie over all in the Biſhop of Rome, but yet allow them and him (proportionably to the foreign, if that will content him) that Primacie of order, which by the antient Canons, is allowed them.
Num. 9 Fourthly, whatſoever concerning theſe ſeveral ſteps from the loweſt Clergie man to the firſt of Patriarchs, he phanſies to be anſwered by us; and from thence concludes, that then ſchiſm is no way provided againſt, is viſibly much more true of any Romaniſt; For certainly if he diſſent not from the Biſhop of Rome, it muſt be no ſchiſme, in him though he diſſent from his own Biſhop, his own Archbiſhop, Primate, and Patriarch, and if he doe diſſent from him, 'tis not his conſenting with all his inferior Governors, that will ſtand him in ſtead for his vindication.
Num. 10 And therefore if what he hath formed againſt me by his making anſwer himſelf to his own queſtions, be found really to conclude (as he ſaith it doth) againſt all ſubordination, 'tis now evident, who is moſt blameable for it, he doubtleſſe, that hath divolved all into the Monarchike ſupremacy of the Pope, and permits us not to conſider, what any other our immediate ſuperiors require of us.
Num. 11 Laſtly, what he puts into my mouth by way of anſwer, concerning ſubordination to a General Councel, that if a nation or Biſhop diſſent from the reſt of a General Councel, ſtill it is not ſchiſme, unleſſe, as I ſaid, there be deceit in ſubſtituting the word Diſſent, for Departure or Receſſion, I ſhall no way acknowledge the anſwer which he believes I will make; For certainly I acknowledge, as much as he, or any man, the authority of a General Councel againſt the diſſents of a nation, much more of a particular Biſhop. And theſe were miſadventures enough to be noted in one Paragraph.
Sect. II.
The ſufficiency of the few heads reſolved on by the Apoſtles. The notion of Fundamentals. The Canon of Epheſus concerning it. The definition of the Councel of Florence. Many Churches have not betrayed this trust. Chriſtian practice to be ſuper-added. The few things preſerved by Tradition.
Num. 1 NExt he proceeds to another part of the diſcourſe of that Chapter, concerning the heads reſolved on by the Apoſtles, in order to planting Chriſtian life, and to that he thus offers his exceptions.
Num. 2 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 doe not know what a Catholick profeſſeth more, ſo that by the word few, he meaneth enough to forme 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, cleare it is that it preſerved it by Tradition; if there be a queſtion whether it hath or no, againe 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 Grotius was.
Num. 3 That what I affirme, as he confeſſeth conformably, to the Catholikes profeſſion, may be as full and explicite as he can deſire, I doubt not to expreſſe my meaning to be, that the few heads, that the Apoſtles reſolved on, were ſufficient both for number and efficacy, or in*Epiſt. ad Epict. Athanaſius his language, foreign, ſufficient for the averting all impiety, and eſtabliſhment of all piety in Chriſt; And for his ſatisfaction therein, I referre him to the Treatiſe of Fundamentals, printed ſince that of Schiſme, of which the onelyonly deſigne was to inſiſt on this, as the grand notion of Fundamentals, ſuch as were by the Apoſtles and Chriſt himſelfe, deemed moſt proper and effectual to plant Chriſtian life in a world of Jewes, and Gentiles, and briefly to ſet downe and enumerate all thoſe that the Apoſtles thought thus neceſſary.
Num. 4 To which I ſhall now adde one obſervation, that this ſufficiency of the foundation by them laid and ſomewhat explained (on occaſion of Heretical oppoſers) by the Councel of Nice, &c. was ſuch, that the Epheſine Councel following that of Nice, 106. yeares, made a decree, foreign, &c. that it ſhould not be lawfull for any man to produce, write, … compoſe any beliefe beſide that which was eſtabliſht by the Fathers at Nice, and that they which ſhould dare to compoſe or offer any ſuch to any that would from Gentiliſme, Judaiſme, or whatever Hereſie convert to the ackcowledgment of the truth, if they were Biſhops, ſhould be depoſed from their Biſhopricks, if Laymen, anathematiſed, &c. Can. 7.
Num. 5 And this authority being preſt by the Greeks to the Latines, in the Council of*Seſſ. 10. Florence, and that with this ſmart expreſſion, foreign, No man will accuſe the Faith (that which thoſe Fathers had profeſt) or charge it of imperfection, unleſſe he be mad, Concil. l. 7. p. 642. A. The Latines anſwer is but this, that that Canon did not forbid, foreign, another explication agreeable to the truth contained in that Crede, acknowledging that it did forbid foreign, difference as well as contrariety (pag. 644. b) and even for ſuch a bare explication they counted not that lawfull for any but the Fathers convened in O Ecumenical Synods, citing it from Aquinas, 2a. 2 ae. qu: 1: ar. 10. and adding that he ſpake, foreign, of any Creed whatſoever which was common to the whole Church.Ib. p. 641. D.
Num. 6 And accordingly there followes out of the Epiſtle of Celeſtine to Neſtorius, foreign, The beliefe delivered by the Apoſtles requires neither addition nor diminution.
Num. 7 In all which, how they are concerned, who impoſe ſo many new articles of beliefe upon their owne Churches, and upon all that deſire Communion with them, I leave to each Romaniſt to conſider, ann ſhall onelyonly adde the words of the Catechiſm taken out of the workes of Coſterus, Petrus de Soto, and others, and ſet out by command of the Archbiſhop of Triers, reſp. ad 2. qu. Neque ulla unquam ex titit hareſis, quae non hoc ſymbolo damnari potuerit, There was never any Hereſie which might not be condemned by the Apostles Creed. It were well we might be allowed the benefit of this tryal.
Num. 8 And now having given this pledge of my readineſſe to anſwer his queſtions, though I diſcern not any obligation, ariſing from my former diſcourſe, to lye upon me, yet I ſhall not be ſo nice or ſparing of my paines, as to deny him a clear account alſo of his ſubſequent demands, but ſhall ſpeak as loud as he would wiſh, and tell him firſt to the firſt demand, that as to thoſe few heads I ſpoke of, I can, bleſſed be God, ſhew him Churches enough, which have not betrayed the truſt depoſited; The Church of England, even now, under the ſaddeſt perſecution, hath not been tempted to betray that truſt, the Church of Rome, through all the Proſperity and Splendor, and Grandeur, which it hath long injoyed, and which, the Hiſtorian tells us, acrioribus ſtimulis animum explorant, hath as yet held out thus farre: I meane hath retainnd thoſe few head…, and in that reſpect is not accuſed by us to have betrayed that trust (I wiſh it were as blameleſſe in all things elſe, particularly in that wherein our preſent debate is moſt concerned, in impoſing new Articles of Faith on all Chriſtians, and her own infallibility for the firſt of them.)
Num. 9 The ſame I can as freely affirm of all other National Churches, that I know of, confining my diſcourſe ſtill to the ſmall (yet in the Apoſtles opinions ſufficient) number of heads of ſpecial force to the planting of Chriſtian life through the world.
Num. 10 And ſo as this Gentleman is much diſappointed in his expectation, that I ſhould not be able to name any Church that hath not betrayed the truſt depoſited, ſo I muſt profeſſe to him, I think it as reaſonable, that they that agree in believing and conſerving thoſe few pretious heads of truth, deſigned to ſo glorious an end, as is the peopling a world with a peculiar colonie of inhabitants, all uniformly zealous of good workes, ſhould all joyne hands and hearts, to adde that ſuperſtructure to the foundation, pure, immaculate, Elevated, Heroical, i. e. Chriſtian practice, to the untainted beliefe of theſe few things.
Num. 11 And then how much blame (by force of that Canon of Epheſus) moſt juſtly belongs unto them that make it their great intereſt to quarrel, divide from, and anathematize, all others, who cannot believe all other things which they chance to believe, though they know they agree with them in all that the Apoſtles thus thought neceſſary to be agreed in; & indeed how contrary this is, and deſtructive to this ſuperſtructure, of which Charity in one principall ingredient, and ſo to the deſigne of laying the foundation, though not to the foundation it ſelfe, I ſhall leave this Gentleman and every ſober Chriſtian to conſider, and if he judge not as I doe, yet I ſhall not foreign number it among the prodigies of the age, or indeed thinke ſtranger of it, than I have long done of the great diſtance betwixt Reaſon and Paſſion in the ſame ſort of creatures, Man, and (God knowes too oft) in the ſame Individual creature, the ſame Man and Chriſtian.
Num. 12 Having gone thus farre in ready obedience to this Gentlemans lighteſt intimation of his pleaſure, in ſatisfaction to his firſt demand, I ſhall in the ſame humour proceed without all reſerve to the next, doubting as little as he, but that theſe few things (all juſtice muſt allow our diſcourſe to he coherent, and ſo to adhere to the ſame ſubject with which we began) have been preſerved in each Church by Tradition, and then to the third, that there is no place of doubt concerning the fact, and ſo of queſtion, whether they have or no, and if by thus speaking aloud to every of his demands, I render my ſelfe ſubject to as much jealouſie as I ſay Grotius was, I ſhall not accuſe him as my tempter, but onelyonly ſupport and comfort my ſelf, that I have retained as much innocence as I alwaies thought Grotius had done, and by declaring my meaning thus clearly, and profeſſing that I mean no whit more than I ſay, I ſee no place for jealouſie remaining to any.
Num. 13 If to believe the Apoſtles Creed to be conveyed down to us by tradition in every national Church from the Apoſtles time to this, be any hereſie, I am viſibly guilty of it, and need not have my words put upon the rack (as Grotius's have been) to extort a more explicite confeſſion from them.
Sect. III.
Submiſſion without opinion of infallibility. The appeal to the Fathers of the firſt 300 years, and the four General Conncels, to what it belongs. The ſilence of the firſt times no advantage to the Romaniſt. Two Queſtions of Additaments to Faith; The way of debating each of them.
Num. 1 HIS laſt exception to this Chapter is to our profeſſion of humility and temper, which it ſeems thoſe of our religion muſt not be permitted to aſſume to themſelves (and which I was no farther ſo inſolent to aſſume, than as it is obſervable in the peculiarity of the frame of the Church of England's Reformation) Thus,
Num. 2 I cannot but admire indeed the great temper he profeſſeth men of his religion have, in chooſing of Doctrines, to wit, their ſubmiſſion to the three firſt Ages, and the four firſt Councels, but I confeſſe it is a humility I underſtand not, firſt to profeſſe, 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 Councel was held about the midſt of the fift 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 doe they finde Chriſt's Church ſhall be judge in three Ages, and fail in the fourth, or that the Councels in the fift Age ſhall be ſound, but not the Fathers.
Num. 3 It is very hard, it ſeems, to pleaſe this Gentleman. Our humility is one while by him cenſured as really too great, another while the want of it is our crime, and we equally to be ſcoffed at on both accounts.
Num. 4 It is a criminous exceſſe of humility forſooth, to ſubmit to thoſe, of whom we firſt profeſſe not to know that they are infallible. But as long as we doe verily believe they doe actually affirm truth, why may we not ſubmit to them, though we know not that they are infallible? For certainly I may ſubmit to my natural, or civil parent in this manner, obey him in all his commands (ſuppoſing, as now I doe, that none of his commands are by me apprehended to be unlawful, as none of theſe Councels definitions, as by us believed to be, contrary to the Word and Will of God) though yet I neither account him inerrable nor impeccable. But of this I have ſpoken already Chap: I. Sect. 3.
Num. 5 What he adds of holding under pain of damnation what they ſay, is in this place an inſertion of this Gentleman's, no word being ſaid of it in that ſection, to which his words are confronted, and having elſewhere ſpoken to that, I abſtain from adding more at this time.
Num. 6 In the next place it ſeems our humility is too ſcanty, for when I have ſubmitted to be judged by the ſcriptures, the conſent of the firſt 300 years, or the four General Councels, whether we have departed from the Apoſtolical doctrines or traditions, this, ſaith he, is ſubmitting to Ages where very few witneſſes can be found &c. But I deſire it may be remembred, what there I ſpeak of, (for perhaps this Gentleman's haſte hath not permitted him to advert to it) the conteſting or innocence in this, that we of the Church of England have not departed from the Apoſtolick doctrine and traditions; And for this whether could the appeal more properly be directed, than to the ſcriptures, the Conſervatorie of the Apoſtles written doctrine, and the three firſt Centuries, the conſervatorie of their traditions, It being unimaginable that any thing ſhould be ſo per ſaltum conveyed to us from the Apoſtles, as to leap over thoſe three Centuries next to them, without leaving any footſtep diſcernible among them.
Num. 7 For let the witneſſes of thoſe times, the authors that remain to us be never ſo few, yet unleſſe by ſome of their hands we be directed what the Apoſtles delivered to them, how can we know what was delivered? It being all one in this reſpect not to be, as not to appear, Tradition, even Apoſtolical, being no more than an empty name, unleſſe we ſuppoſe our ſelves able to avouch ſome competent teſtifiers of the Tradition.
Num. 8 And if to theſe two, I have added the four General Councels, becauſe they were held againſt the great disturbers of the unity of the Faith, and they maintained the true faith by theſe two ſpecial weapons, the Scriptures and Tradition, teſtified by the firſt Writers, and our Church hath taken in their Creed… into our Liturgies, and their definitions into our Articles of religion, and ſo I have by that appeal ſo farre teſtified our non departure from the Faith, I hope there is no offence in this, no degree of defect in our humility.
Num. 9 As for the little occaſion theſe firſt had to ſpeak of the preſent controverſies, that ſure cannot be objected againſt our procedure (any more than the paucity of the Authors could) for if the Romaniſt doe but grant this one thing, it will be found a real prejudice to his pretenſions, if (which was the point in hand) the queſtion be, whether the Church of England have departed from the unity of the Apoſtolick Faith, denied any Apoſt…lick Doctrine or Tradition.
Num. 10 For in this Controverſie how ſhall it be proved, that we have departed, unleſſe that Doctrine or Tradition being ſpecified what it is, it be evidenced alſo, that it was delivered by the Apoſtles, and how can that be evidenced, but by thoſe which within ſome competent diſtance of their time, affirm that from them, and how can they be pretended to affirm that, if it be granted of them that they had no occaſion to ſpeak of it, and ſo are utterly ſilent in it.
Num. 11 To his laſt note of humility i. e. the next expreſſion of his ſcoptical humor, there can be no need of applying any anſwer, it being no where intimated in that Treatiſe that we are not ready to ſtand to the fourth Age, or that wherein the fourth Councel was held; All that was ſaid, was, that the three firſt Ages, and the four General Councels were competent witneſſes of the Apoſtolical doctrines and traditions, and I deſire any man to name any other that were more competent to this purpoſe, i. e. to teſtifie what the Apoſtles taught, It being certain that whoſoever doth (not by inspiration) tell us any thing of that kinde, muſt aſſume to tell it from them, and as evident that all thoſe things (that even now were ſpoken of) which the Apoſtles reſolved on, as heads of ſpecial force to form religion and Chriſtian life, were by this means conveyed to us.
Num. 12 Mean while other matters there are, which we look on as additaments to the doctrines of Faith, and ſo are the ſubject of a double queſtion, 1. whether they be parts of that faith which was once, or at once delivered to the ſaints, 2. whether not appearing to be ſo, there be any other juſt reaſon to believe, though but by an humane Faith, that they have any truth in them.
Num. 13 Now of theſe two queſtions, as the reſolution of the former depends upon thoſe Ages, which alone can conveigh Tradition to the ſucceeding, and ſo ſtill for that we referre our ſelves to the former Vmpirage, ſo of the ſecond, I did not then, becauſe I had not occaſion to ſpeak in that place.
Num. 14 And if my anſwer be required now, I ſhall readily give it, that in matters of this nature the Opinions of the Fathers of the Church in the moſt flouriſhing Ages of it, wherein their writings are moſt voluminous, and their Learning in Theologie moſt venerable, are with us of great weight and conſideration; we doe (and ſhall upon all occaſions demonſtrate our ſelves to) allow them as full an authority, pay as great and true a reverence to their judgments, indevour as uniformly to conform our ſelves to the declarations of their ſenſe, as any ſober Romaniſts are by us diſcerned to doe, or as it can be their intereſt to doe, in reſpect of the controverſies that lie between us. And ſo ſtill I diſcern not, wherein our humility can be judged to fail by thoſe, with whom I now dispute, being content that it ſhould by others be judged exceſſive.