Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist, Chapter 5 · Section 2
SECT. II.
Answere to his seventh Section. Admiration and Prodigy relative. S. W's guesses not creditable against our knowledge. Our denying a Fact is not our pleading the reasonablenesse of it: Not inflicting Censures differs much from joyning with Schismaticks. S. W's interpretation of not pressing false Fundamentals. His averting our charity to their Church. What danger if our charity erred? An account of our belief that the Church of Rome is a true Church. The Nagges-head Bishops. With what truth that Fable is now revived. Mission from Rome in what sence.
1. IN his seventh Section the mistakes affix'd on me in reply to his Introduction, will not move any man that shall compare Dexter. ch. 11. Sect. 1. with these suggestions.
2. For example, it being the part of a wise man, nil admirari, to admire nothing, and new and strange and prodigious effects being the only things for which admiration, which hath gone for an excesse of minde, is allowable or excusable, and yet S. W. owning some admiration to have been bred in him, I know not that I could misinterpret him, when I conceived some great unheard of newes and prodigy to be the one proper object of such acknowledged admiration.
3. As for the account of our writing books by pairs (he may now remember Sir Roger Twisden, and Dr. Ferne and say by Messes) on the subject of Schisme, I must be allowed to give the reasons with more certain judgement than any else, but the Bishop of Derry, and those others, and the searcher of hearts; And therefore if he will still satisfie himself with his own auguries, and set up his phansie for an infallible testifier, against other mens inerrable sensations of a fact within their own cognisance, I shall leave him and his Reader to try it out, and not endeavour to make this impertinent breach betwixt us wider by debating.
3. So when I take notice of his mention of our pleading the reasonablenesse of our own Schisme, as a foreign, what trust is due to him in his affirmations, he will perswade me that I interpret his words, as if he meant, that I confess'd it Schisme] But it is evident to any Reader, that reflects on my words (Answ. to Sch. Dis. Ch. 2. Sect. 2. n. 1.) that I doe not so interpret his words, but only assume, that he saith (which are his expresse words) that we plead the reasonablenesse of our Schisme, and answer, that I grant all Schisme uncapable of all plea of reasonablenesse, and maintain our innocence by denying the fact, and not by defending the justice of it. And therefore although herein he either is, or desires others should be deceived (for my exception is still the same that it was, that we deny the fact, have not divided, or brake from any Government, that we were under, and then how can I be supposed to plead the reasonablenesse of that fact, which he calls our Schisme, if I think we never committed that fact? and if we had, I confesse we could not produce any justifiable reason for it) yet the farther discussing this, were but the repeating what hath been so oft said, that we plead not (as he oft, and fain would have us) the causes of our division (but deny that we ever divided) and that all the breach or partition that is made, proceeds from their sentences of Excommunication, as inexorable, as unjust.
4. So in his Reply concerning the aim and end of the Churches censures, 'tis so visible I spake not of our not keeping our selves separate from Schismaticks, on one side, nor of the punishments subsequent to Excommunication, on the other side, but of that peculiarly, whereof he spake before, viz. the whether inflicting or threatning them with the Spiritual rod of Excommunication (which were little lesse than fury toward a Schisme armed with might, and so, farre from Christian, or charitative, or prudent) that it is not imaginable he can expect farther answer to his suggestions, than is already largely afforded him.
5. His next piece [of their not pr…ssing us to believe false fundamentals] as it is now interpreted by him, must signifie a special rarity, viz. his telling me, that they doe not presse us to believe false fundamentals, meaning by fundamentals, as he saith, such points as we account fundamentals] which being easily spelled, and put together, amounts to this, that they doe not presse us to believe such false points, as we accounted fundamentals,] On which I acknowledge my discourse too short to make any rational reflexions, I am no Oedipus for such riddles, but acknowledge, that because I was so charitable as to think he spake words that would hear some sense, I affix'd not this interpretation on them, and so it is but a faint sparkling of S. W's more radiant esprite, to demand now, whether it were wrong to us to affirm that we would not speak a contradiction] No, but it was, it seems, superabundant charity in me to praesume he would not.
6. Meanwhile 'tis possible one passage in this discourse of the truth of their Church p. 63. may breed some scruple, how I can acknowledge the Church of Rome a true Church, when I deny their Infallibility, which he here, as elsewhere, affirms to be the Fundamental of Fundamentals, upon which as her sole certain ground she builds all her Faith. Upon which his argument thus proceeds, If the sole Authority on which she builds all her faith, to wit, her infallible authority, be a ruinous falshood, she can have no true faith of any Article, and consequently can have no faith at all, nor be a true Church, since a Church cannot survive the destruction of faith, whence he concludes, that our ambition to honour our Nagges-head Bishops with the shadow of a mission from their Church makes us kindely speak nonsense to doe Rome a seeming courtesie for our own interest.]
7. To all this therefore I must pay some attendance, and first, to reflect a while on his plain affirmation, that their Infallibility is their fundamental of Fundamentals, their sole certain ground on which she builds all her faith.] I may here have leave with some astonishment to demand, if Gods veracity, his word and certain truth of his affirmations, be not at least some part of their Faith, if not the foundation of it? and if they believe that only upon their own infallibility, and not their infallibility on that? 2. Whether she may not aequally build on this foundation all things in the world, which she can or shall ever believe, as she builds those articles which she now professeth? But this theme is too large for a foreign, and hath in an intire tract, been long since considered.
8. Secondly then for our destroying their Faith and Church by denying their Infallibility, I shall return answer, such as I hope will justifie the reason of our charity toward them, though they should all be such passionate, avowed, impersuasible, and even Platonick lovers of hatred and strife, as S. W. affects to be esteemed, most vehemently renouncing their thinking of our Church under that notion, when they pray for the peace of the Catholike Church, p. 78. and giving his reason why we should not have charity, or con thanks to the humble members of the Papacy for such prayers, and so here sollicitously providing, and proposing arguments to avert our charitable acknowledgement that their Church is a true Church.
9. And 1. I might demand, what injury it would be to their Church, or criminous error in us, if a few poor persecuted Christians, being railed at for haereticks, and cast out of their Church, did so farre deceive themselves by their earnest desire to live peaceably with all men, and to repay good for evil, as without grounds demonstrable, or duely approveable, to hope or believe better of them than they deserve, or than they are willing we should perswade our selves, or others, that they deserve? Or how were it reconcileable with humility in them, to reject these no poysonous effluxions of this, easie, well-meant, (though 'twere irrational) charity?
10. But then 2. we doubt not of the solidity of our grounds, whereby we conclude the Church of Rome a true Church, as having received and retained the Articles of the Apostles Crede, the one only true faith, once, or at once delivered. And if they do also believe the Infallibility of the present Roman Church, which we account an error, yet will not that (or their many other additional errors) be sufficient of it self to destroy the foundation supposed to be believed by them, any more than telling many falsities is unreconcileable with telling any truth.
11. As for his argument, founded in the supposal that she builds all her faith on her own Infallible authority, my charity still bids me hope that she doth not, but upon the Doctrine of Christ, and therefore that the Church, in this argument, is an ambiguous word, distinguishable into the ancient, Primitive, Apostolical Church truely Ʋniversal, and the present modern Roman Church falsely styling it self Ʋniversal; and then as I doubt not but the former of these was infallible in testifying their own sensations, and so in delivering down both the Canon of the Scripture, and articles of the Crede, so I charitably perswade my self, that the present Roman Church believes both these upon that Testimony of theirs, and then that as including the Apostles, and Christ, and so God himself, is their Fundamental of Fundamentals, their sole certain Ground.
12. As for their present Church, as farre as it teaches no more, than it received from them, so farre it proceeds infallibly also, but hath not it self that amulet or charme of Infallibility, that although it should believe, and teach, as received from them, what really they never delivered, it should yet be unerrable in thus believing, or affirming.
13. And this (if there be any kinde of truth in such as do not praetend to be infallible in all things) is the true ground of our believing them still a true (yet not an infallible) Church, though how soon they will make use of their praetended infallibility to destroy some articles of the Faith, as they have done to introduce those that are no articles, I undertake not to divine, yet conceive that the divolving the whole ground of saith to the Oral Tradition of each present age, and defining for Articles, whatsoever the present Mothers shall teach their children, is as ready a way toward it, as the Devil could civilly suggest, or instill into them; But the no great reverence I owe to S. W's affirmations leaves still place for my charity, to believe that there be but few Romanists as yet, that have entred into this temptation. And untill it be formed into an article, and these possible noxious consequences be actually and practically derived from it, I shall still hope that the taking up all true fundamental articles, on what grounds soever, though from a book casually found among Heathens, much more from Romish Mothers (though they neither are, nor are deemed infallible) may, with the superstructing of good life, bring safe to heaven him who hath no other means to direct him thither.
14. For I shall demand, in case a Christian Priest or but a Lay person, should goe to the Indies, and there promulgate the true Doctrine, or (to satisfie S. W.) the whole Roman Doctrine of the Tridentine Articles, telling them withall, that God came to him in a Vision, and revealed this Doctrine, and with it gave him this command, to preach it to those Auditors, and in case those Indians believe all that he saith, his Vision, and his Doctrine too, his Vision, which I with S. W. suppose to be a Falsitie, and his Doctrine, which S. W. grants with my supposition to be a truth, shall not, I say, those Indians, that thus believe all Catholike truth, be acknowledged to have a true Faith, and if by that Priest they were baptized into this Catholike Faith, be thus farre accounted Christians, in a state of salvation, if without ever discovering the falsenesse of the praetended Vision, they die in that Faith? I shall not think S. W. so severe to these new Proselytes, as to doubt of their Faith or Salvability. And I shall have the same charity to him and his Church, if as sincerely, as the supposed Indians, they believe all Catholike truth, and as blamelessely, as those Indians, continue to believe some untruths. So much may suffice for this objection.
15. To his mention of the Nagges-head Bishops I have nothing to return, but that it seems these are times, wherein the most refuse trash, the most scandalously reprobate ware may hope to be put off to some Customers, else this which was long since driven to its den, and discovered to be palpable forgery by testimony of undenyable records, would not adventure the shame of coming upon the Stage again, as both here by S. W. and by another Libeller I hear it hath; If Mr. Mason hath not already done it for him; or if he do in earnest attribute ought to the one auxiliary, newly brought in, the praetended Confession of the Bishop of Durham in the late Parliament, he will soon see (if not before this can tell him so) from evidences undenyable, what sort of wares those are▪ which now a dayes the Romanist serves out to his Customers.
16. Meanwhile S. W. hath not very reconcileably joyned the mention of the Nagges-head Bishops, and so much as a shadow of mission from Rome, for I alwayes understood the Fable of the Nagges-head to have praetended, that those which had never been any kinde of (and so not Romish) Bishops, made o…e another Bishops at that merry meeting. And then they had as fair a praetension (and so shadow) of mission from Constantinople, as from Rome, the same that the Sebaptistae, i. e. none at all from any, but themselves.
17. Lastly I have not been acquainted with those men, whose ambition it hath been to honour our Bishops with mission from Rome, any farther, than by affirming this known truth, that those who consecrated our Bishops, as in King Henries, so in Queen Elizabeths time, had, till they were Excommunicate, held communion with Rome, receiving Ordination from the Bishops their Praedecessors under the Primate of this Nation, who by a Chain of Succ…ssion received it also either from the British Bishops, who own'd no dependence on Rome, or from Augustine the Monke, who was ordained by the Bishop of Arles in France, but being sent hither by the Pope, payd a special respect unto him, but (as was formerly insisted on) appears not ever to have exacted acknowledgement, or performed obedience to his Ʋniversal Pastorship. And whether our (whom he libellously styles Nagges-head) Bishops had their mission uninterrupted from the British, or French, or Romish Bishops, it matters little to us, who doubt not but each of these had it by continued succession from the Apostles, who planted the Faith, and imposed hands on their first fruits in every of these Regions. And so as we have no interests to serve (whatever he is resolved to phansie) by praetending mission from Rome, so we need not nonsense, and it now appears we have not let fall any, in our courtesie (more than seeming) to their Church. And another S. W. could hardly have contrived so many misadventures into so little compasse;
18. His farther inlargements concerning Copes, Surplices, and Organs, had their satisfactory answers formerly, and have now no new addition of armature, or propriety to our praesent debates, and so I shall leave them to him that pleases to consider them, as I do also his addition of their Churches possession of their belief of the Infallibility, which hath largely been spoken to already.