Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist, Chapter 5 · Section 3
SECT. III.
Answere to his VIII Section. His notion of good and bad. Rendring causes of Schisme differs from proving we have not separated. The pretense of an external confess'd Government. The Romanists Schisme. S. W's argument to prove it impossible, considered. Aristocracy a Government, as well as Monarchy. The Government of the Church by Primates. Schisme from Fraternal Ʋnion also. Injustice of their censures. All [Ifs] are not ridiculous. Two sins may be aequal. His insertion of [not] Irenaeus's foreign. Cautious expressions. The title of Catholicks no argument. St. Augustines testimony no proof of it. A Tract of haeresie several from that of Schisme. His ninth Grammatical Section passed over lightly.
1. IN his eigth Section, though I cannot admire the Rule of his great Masters of morality, that nothing is in it self good or bad, but as it conduces to, or averts from the attaining ones last end ('tis sufficient to me, that some things being in their own nature good, and agreeable to those Souls which God hath appointed to have the Government of our actions, and the contrary to these in their own nature evil, as breaches of his aeternal Law, God hath most graciously decreed to reward, with aeternal blisse those actions of ours, which are so consonant to our natures, and aeternally to punish our violations of those his most aequal Lawes, our casting off from us his foreign, his gra…ous as well as easie Yoke) yet have I no reason to go out of my way to examine it, or any other part of his procedure, whereby he inferres no more than what he knowes I first affirmed to him, that there is no just cause praetensible for Schismatizing, or separating from any our lawfull Governours.
2. As for his examination of my inference, that because Schisme can have no just causes, therefore in treating a Controversie of Schisme, I ought not to heed or produce causes] he hath on that head nothing to purpose, but a piteous thin Sophisme, that if I doe an external act, which hath the shew of Schisme, and yet will defend my self to be no Schismatick, I must give account why I doe that action, and shew that that action is not truely Schisme] To which I answer, as formerly, that it is one thing to render causes of Schisme or separating from a Government, another to shew and prove that we have not separated. This latter therefore is the only thing incumbent on us, and that we undertake, and to that end, he knowes, the Tract of Schisme was avowed to be written; but the former was none of our interests, who have no act in this matter to give account of, being meerly passive, (we leave it to Mr. S. and his Complices, which have forsaken their persecuted Mother, cast off their Governours, under whom they were actually (I must suppose duely) placed) and therefore let S. W. never so long perswade, and think he demonstrates the necessity, he must excuse us, that we do not acknowledge that necessity, or consequently attempt to propose any such reasons; For how can we be required to render our reasons of dividing, when he knowes we contest that we never divided? Would not this more than imply a contradiction? And then that the contrary should be charged on us (so p. 72. it is) as a pure contradiction, is certainly the greatest and most unreconcileable contradiction in the world, and so fit for none but S. W's omnipotent faculty to assume to maintain against me.
3. As for his*P. 73. state of the quaestion of an external confess'd Government at that time (of Henry VIII.) he hath already heard sufficiently, viz. that the Ʋniversal Pastorship, as derived from Christ, was not then confess'd in our Kingdome; and so that he will gain as little by his praetended external possession (unlesse the Pope possesses all, that he and his Factors shall affirm he possesses) as that which he calls my cunningly forged false state of the quaestion, which spake of Supreme Legal power here, i. e. such as our Lawes acknowledged to be in force, or if he please; in possession among us.
4. Of the same batch it is, which followes, that he will still affirm, that†P. 73. actually we were under the Church of Rome at that time, demanding,*P. 74. whether I can doubt, whether there was an extern apparent and acknowledge authority—and†P. 74. supposing that I will acknowledge it, and that*P. 75. if they usurp'd, it was not lately, but a thousand years agoe] With what reason of his confidence, he or the Reader may now judge from what hath formerly been said of their falsely supposed possession, on which as his†Ib. only proof he professes to build all their right, and which failing, 'tis necessary their right must fail also, without farther disputing whether bare possession, not founded in right, could found, or conclude a right in the Possessors.
5. For the Schismaticalnesse of their Church, he would perswade himself, that we accuse them weakly and faintly, and that the light of nature and common language of mankinde checks us in it, by telling us that the whole is not said to be broken from a part, but a part from the whole] But this, I may say, is a most weak supposition, and as faint a proof, on his part; For as of the English Revolters, we make no quaestion, but they have schismatized from that part of the Ʋniversal Church, of which they were baptized and initiated to be members (and that is not the breaking of the whole from a part, for sure Mr. S. or any other English Revolter is not the whole Church) so for the Bishops of Rome we as little doubt of their breach of charity, and Christian communion (and that is Schisme also) in casting out their so many fellow members, whole Churches of all quarters; And that again is a breaking not of the whole, but of one part from other parts, and those much more diffused, and of greater circuit, than is the Church of the Dividers.
6. To save them from this guilt, his acumen is extraordinary, for thus he argues, that in this supposed case, they can never be shewn Schismatical against Government or unity in the Church, if no such unity can be found, as it cannot, saith he, in that mould the Doctor hath cast Christianity, by making each Church foreign independent or self-governed, since there can be no division made, where the things are already many.] To this, as the prime considerable of this Section I shall accommodate some answer, 1. that by the purport of the argument we have reason to conclude, that if it were possible they should be Schismaticks, it could not be questioned but they are such, and then they that have done as much as is possible for them to be guilty of that dangerous sin, it is but time that they should look about them, examine and throughly consider their state. 2. That 'tis too strange an assumption to be proposed without tender of all proof, that there can be no unity in the Church, if each Church be foreign. He cannot but know that an Aristocracy is a Government, and a Common-wealth an one body (though the persons, wherein the Government is, are many) as well as a Monarchy, where it is placed in one single person. And so certainly the whole Church represented in a General Councel by the Bishops of each particular Church, or governed by so many Primates out of a Councel, is one body, as fitly and properly so called, and as exactly and firmly compacted, as if all their power were contracted in five Patriarchs, or those again molten into one successor of St. Peter. When the great dispute was betwixt Rome and Constantinople, Balsamon recites the opinion of some, that the Headship over the Church was in all the five Patriarchs, *Medit. & Resp. l. 7. in Jure Graeco Rom. t. 1. p. 449.foreign, because the five Patriarchs supply the place of the one head of the body, to wit of the holy Churches of God. And had they, that spake thus of the five Patriarchs, inlarged it to all the Primates, they had spoken agreeably to the Canons of all the General Councels, who subject all the Bishops in every Province to their Primate, and divide the whole Church into so many foreign or administrations, as there are Primates; And this would be a solving of the grand objection of Bellarmine and others, in behalf of the Pope, and against the placing the Supremacy in General Councels [that in the Intervals of such Councels, the Supremacy should rest no where, if it did not in the Bishop of Rome] for then it is clear, it might rest in the Primates, and, if need required, be exercised by them, without any more numerous convention, and by each of these severally the so many foreign be governed, of which the whole body is made up. What judgement S. W. will passe on this, I am not much concerned to be sollicitous, but referre it to more indifferent judges, if this be not an expedient of some value toward the ending this Controversie; I am sure it is of full force to evacuate all force of his argument, and then there being this way, wherein unity is found, it may sure be shewn that the Romanist is Schismatical from this Ʋnity.
7. Nay thirdly, 'tis so evident, that those things that are in one respect many, may be united in some common respect (as they that have not union of external Government, may yet have fraternal communion and mutual concord one with the other) that 'tis still manifest, that Churches wholly independent, and not subordinate one to the other, may yet communicate one with the other, and ought to have praeparednesse of charity to do so; and if so, they may, by breach of that communion, divide also, and then if Mr. S. have no better security than this, to keep him from being concluded a Schismatick, 'tis time for him to consider whether it be not more eligible to return, and be persecuted, than to continue where he is, in the state of defiance and bitternesse to his old Mother.
8. He is very confident of having defended the Romish Church in their remorselesse Censures, because this he thinks hath been the constant practice of Gods Church, to excommunicate all those who renounced either the Government, or any other part of faith received from their forefathers] But 1. he considers not, that we renounced no Government, that we were not really under (only the Pope was very willing to challenge, and industrious to get Dominion over us) and 2. that the errors of our forefathers may be renounced without offending against any Church, or provoking their censures, and 3. that what he calls the Faith, he must prove to be such, or else it may be allowed to passe with us, who undertake to shew it was not part of that Faith which was …e delivered to the Saints, under the title not of the Faith of our first, but Errors or Additionals of our immediate forefathers.
9. As for the [Ifs] that he is so fastidiously displeased with, he hath, I doubt not, judgement enough, to discern that all the severals so introduced, are things that we assume to have actually proved, and that the arguments for them are evidently deduced from the Canons that are there mentioned p. 20. and other proofs that were not ag…in to be repeated, having elsewhere been so largely deduced. And if every hypothetical Syllogisme, the minor whereof is proved to be actually true, or if not so, yet offered to be proved by Testimonies of weight, to which no least reply is made, can be parallel'd with nothing but (the proverbial expression of impossibilities) the falling of the skye, and if S. W. can no otherwise attempt Answer to such evidences, than by recourse to a meagre proverb, as farre removed from the purpose, as the Skie from the Larks, I may be allowed to admire his faculties, but not sollicitously attend him in the exercise of them.
10. In this place he will needs perswade himself or others, that I was willing to*P. 78. palliate Schisme by praetense of some greater sin] when yet 1. he knowes that I professe no cause can justifie or palliate the sin of Schisme, and therefore 2. that I undertake but one thing, viz. to shew that we are not guilty of any fact which can with any reason be called Schisme. 3. He might know that no praetense of greater sin can evade or palliate a sin: I must not commit any one sin, to avoid another. And 4. another man would think it a competent evidence, that I did not seek to palliate Schisme, when I set it out in a phrase more comprehensive than that which I was to interpret. But he that is to subsist by his skill in cavilling, must be excused, if he never give over the exercise of it, and praesume he hath carryed all before him, by saying, 'tis false, and moral science assures him that no t…o kindes of vices are aequal, when yet he neither tenders us any grounds of his affirmation or that assurance, nor considers that when God saith, Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft, the result is, that those two sins are aequal in Gods sight, who is the more competent Judge of it, than S. W. or his Moral (foreign) Science falsely so called. How it stands with the obvious interpretation of [scarce any (in the singular, i. e. any one) is so great] to affirm that not only some one, but also some few be greater, I am not subtile enough to discern, nor yet concern'd enough to debate with this great Master.
11. His mistake of my words, from which he concludes me to tell him, that my authorities did not induce that there was none greater] is very strange, when my words are expressely the contrary, that my authorities did induce there was none greater. My words are these, I assumed not to affirm more than my authorities did induce, that there was none greater] i. e. my authorities did induce that there was none greater, and I assumed to affirm no more than that. What can be more perspicuous on one side, or misrepresented on the other, what more intolerable in an Author than to insert a [not] in a quotation? 'Twere well if his haste, which my charity before mentioned, as the excuse of his misadventures, could here be pleaded for him.
12. His one pertinent Reply to what was said of the Testimony from Irenaeus, is, that unlesse I had the testimony out of Irenaeus in Greek, my evasion (of foreign being oft no more than hard and difficult) is nothing. To which I answer, that Irenaeus having written in Greek, and foreign in Greek oft signifying no more than very difficult, I could not infallibly conclude any more to be meant by the Latine of his Greek, nulla fieri potest, than that it was hard or difficult, and this is as evident from his Latine Interpreter, as it could be from his Greek Text, if we were Masters of it, and found in it the expresse words foreign. And whereas the style [It is very hard, if not impossible] he would conclude consistent with this sense [it is doubtfull] I answer that this is but a glosse of his; I may abstain from affirming a thing to be absolutely impossible, though I think there be no place of doubting, whether it be true or no. And how could I be thought to design to leave room for the reasonablenesse of any Schisme, who had expressely affirmed that no cause or motive, i, e. reason of Schisme was pleadable?
13. He cites from my words p. 24. l. 11. that my expressions were cautious] where my meaning was evident, as my words, that the cautious interpreting of nulla fieri potest, by 'twas in their opinion very hard, if not impossible] seemed to me the best. But that concludes not my expressions chary in condemning all Schisme, but my care exact, not to misinterpret my Author.
14. Next his discourse of the Roman Church being called Catholike, is somewhat extraordinary; Custome, saith he, which makes words prop…r, forces their very enemies to call them Catholikes; thence he concludes they are universally called such, and then, saith he, according to St. Austin no Church can be universally called such, which is not truely such.] To this I answer, 1. that his argument will aequally hold for the Gnosticks that they were the most truely and profoundly knowing men, they calling themselves so, and their enemies the Fathers of the Church, confuting them under that title; whereas this universal custome could not praevail against St. Pauls words, that their foreign was foreign, Science falsely so intitled. So likewise would it hold for the Cathari, who were so styled by themselves, and by their enemies, and yet shewed to be impure, i. e. Schismatical by those that called them, as they called themselves, by that title of purity. Thus the Author of Schisme Dispatch'd is both by himself, and by me, and all others called S. W. and yet neither he, nor I, nor any man are yet perswaded, that the Author is any otherwise than foreign so called. It seems, a small argument will serve his turn, when his interest combines with it, that he can conclude from the Pursivants asking for a Catholike house, and every one showing him a Romanists, that therefore the Romanist is properly called Catholike]▪ That custome is norma loquendi, so farre as that I shall not offend, if I speak cum vulgo, and that I shall know the meaning of words abusively applyed, and so understand, that he that is called a Catholike is a Romanist, i. e. one who thinks himself truely a Catholike, I had been taught; and so that he that was called Gnosticke, was an haeretick, that assumed the title of profound knowledge; but that that rule was so farre to be extended, that the Romanist that was so styled, should be also the real interpretation of that name, i. e. an universal, any more than that Pope Leo should be a Lyon indeed, or Pope Clement a mercifull man, when he sent out his Bull of great severity, neither S. W. nor yet St. Austin have yet taught me.
15. For in the second place, that Father certainly never defined, that no Church can be universally called such, which is not truly such. If none were universally so called in his time, but the true, that is all that he can be imagined to affirm, and that con…ludes not, but in other times haereticks might assume the most honourable name, and by others be known, and so called by it, without ever deeming that it truely belonged to them. And if our calling them by a title which demonstrates their assuming to themselves more than belongs to them, shall be an argum…nt of force that it doth really belong to them, what they assume, my Logicke I confesse hath failed me; The plain truth is, in St. Augustines dayes the good and Orthodox Christians were called Catholici, and Haereticks and Schismaticks known by the names of their Leaders, Novatians, Donatists, &c. but that hinders not the altering of the Scene, as the Devil we know is not alwayes obliged to appear in his own colours, he can transform himself, as farre as a title goes, into an angel of light, and than reatus impii est pium nomen, the pious name is the guilt of the impious] (which is a known Maxim) would not very properly be interpreted, to this sense, that the title of Catholikes is a certain proof, that the Romanists are the only Orthodox Christians.
16. That I treated of Schisme abstracted from haeresie, he will needs censure, as a laying wrong grounds.] But I answer, that I loved not to speak of two things at once, and therefore reserved haeresie to be spoken of by it self, and have accordingly since the publishing that of Schisme, given him, if he have vouchsafed to look on it, a Tract of Haeresie also, and vindicated the Church of England from the one, as well as the other guilt.
17. His ninth Section of his Grammatical niceties and my ten several mistakes (his so many calumnies) shall sing to themselves, and entertain with their melody their own Muses, I will trust the most partial Reader to determine, whether I am guilty of but one of that catalogue of mistakes. All that I need say to the whole Section, is, 1. that whereas my Disarmer, a profess'd admirer of the Author and Apologist for Rushworths Dialogues, thought fit to accuse the Doctor for saying that the passive foreign was of the nature of the Hebrew Hithpael, and that this is observable in orher passives for want of conjugations in Greek, which the Hebrewes have, and p…ofesses to see no reason, Sch. Dis. p. 8.why the Doctor should complain for want of Conjugations in the Greek Language, there being more there than in Hebrew, and now again resumes this, and raises great storms upon it, the Author of those Dialogues, his other self, makes the self-same general (which comprehends and includes the particular) observation,*Second Dial. Sect. 10. that the Greek wants those sence-varying Conjugations by which the Oriental Languages expresse themselves. From him therefore I hope he will receive so obvious an observation, though when it came from me, it was ridiculous, the difference being only this, that that Author made use of it as an argument to conclude the New-Testament language uncertain, and unintelligible, which with him is good Catholike Doctrine, but I used it to inferre that dangerous conclusion, that Schisme is a voluntary separating or dividing ones self from the Church of God.
18. Secondly, that I hope I was not to blame to expect that the Printers errors should be noted in the Publishers Errata; and thirdly, that I have look'd on Schisme Disarm'd p. 279. and finde no such thing proved there, which here p. 90. he saith is the…e manifested plainly, Fourthly, that the King and Bishops of England renouncing the Popes Ʋniversal Pastorship differ widely from a boy calling his mother whore, and denying himself to be the son of his Father; and fifthly, that they that declared the Kings Supremacy in all causes, and so cast out the Papacy, as that signifies the Ʋniversal Pastorship descended to the Bishop of Rome from Christ, were not esteemed Schismaticks by the Pope himself, as hath formerly appeared, and so remained Catholikes in the Romanists own judgement, and must not now at this distance be condemned, upon no other account, but that they have rejected Oral Tradition, which yet, as hath also appeared, they are not proved to have rejected; And this is all I shall return to his ninth Section.