The Disarmers Dexterities Examined, Chapter 7 · Section 10
SECT. X.
Of Despising. Breach of equal Communion, when just, when Schismatical. S. W. his notion of Tradition, useless to him. Tradition hard to be known, falsely pretended, sometimes concealed. Prosperity of the Romane Church. Our not casting out the Romanists. Our neither judging nor despising them. Schism against the Universal Church or Councels.
THe answer to the second branch, that of despising their brethren now follows, and his advantages against my arguing seem to be great, and in effect these, that no Church must excommunicate any, lest they be guilty of despising them.] But I answer, that this is a clear misrepresentation of my process or arguing. For first, it is evident, that in that place I spake only of fraternal or equal Communion, not of the Governors inflicting censures on any of the members of any Church, but of the Governors and members of one Church cutting off from their Communion the Governors and members of another Church; as when Pope Steven and those with him brake Communion with Cyprian and the rest of the East, and South with him, or as the Jewish and Gentile Christians, neither of them subject to the other, but remaining in their several caetus, separated the one from the other, Rom. 14. This therefore shews the mistake or perversion of my words.
Secondly, speaking of the differences betwixt the Romanists and us, which I must have leave to think are but of that nature, that they ought not to break Communion or Charity among Christians, what I thus affirm of such differences, must not, cannot with any justice be applied to those greater differences betwixt those that believe the Apostles depositum intirely, and those that re…ect any part of it; Those that do thus divide themselves from the unity of that Faith, which was by the Apostles delivered to all their plantations to be believed, that deny any article of it, may without any guilt of despising, or breach of Christian charity, nay upon designes which are perfectly charitative, be rejected from our fraternal Communion, as in the Apostles times, when it was uncharitable walking, and such as ended in the schism, for the Gentiles to despise the Jews weak consciences, who thought it unlawful for them to have those liberties which were really allow'd them by Christ; yet I doubt not but it was perfectly lawful, and charitable, and even Christian duty, for the Orthodox Christians to renounce Communion with the Gnostick hereticks and Schismaticks. And so there now appears more reason in my arguing, than S. W. was willing there should, without any appearance of reason to the contrary; The plain issue of it being no more than this, that they which judge on one side, and they which on the other side despise their fellow Christians, agreeing with them in all those articles of the Christian profession, which the Apostles deposited in every Church, as the only necessaries of belief, and the Symbol…m or Teffera of Christian Communion, and which upon either of these accounts (mentioned to my hand by the Apostle Rom. 14.) either of iudging or despising, i. e. either of thinking that those whom they judge, doe that which is not lawfull for them to do, or that those whom they despise make not use of that liberty that Christ hath purchased for them, shall break society with those other, refuse fra crual Communion with them, i. e. will not live with them as with fellow Christians, only upon such an account as this, that they cannot think all those things lawful or necessary, which they think lawf…l or necessary, these are directly the schismaticks which the Apostle looks on as such, and beside these there is not any species that I can discern of this third sort of the second branch of Sch sm, that which is an offence against that chari y which is due from every Christian to every Christian; and we being not guilty of either of these, and the Romanist being visibly guilty, it remains evident enough, on which side this last sort of s…h sm lies, and to whom it is regularly to be imputed.
On this head of d spising our brethren, whom we concei…e to be in erro…, I had mentioned some grounds, on which i… was rational for us, who believe the Romanists erroneous, yet not to despise them; And as if I offended in this, i. e. either in not despising them, or in thinking I had reason not to despise them, I must be confuted in this also, So prompt is S. W. and so equally qualified to contradict every thing that can be said by me, be it never so much for, or so little against his interests. But the best is, here is little said, (beside expressing the magnanimous humor of chastising every one for an enemy that appears before this Disarmer) to require any return from us, only I am there taught my utter ignorance what tradition is, which indeed I had taken (and sometimes he hath in this tract, given me hopes it was no mistake) for that which pretended at least to be Apostolical tradition, but I am now told, that (in respect of us that now are) it signifies no nore, than what doctrine was held by Christians ten years agoe. and in respect of them that lived ten years agoe, what was held ten years before that, and so forth.] This rarity I shall not now busie my self particularly to examine, it being indeed the resolving all into the present affirmation of the Romane Church of these last ten years, and really making tradition no proof of the truth of their doctrine, and yet putting on the specious name of tradition to disguise that in, or adorn it with; All that is pertinent to my present purpose, is equally granted me by thus setting it, for it is still hard for the multitude to discern by their own ears, what was held all the Church over (and not only within the pale of the Romane Communion) tenn years agoe, or indeed to judge, whether what within these last nine years hath been defined in the very Romane Church, were eleven years agoe held by the Church or no, and consequently whether that which is now held, be tradition.
For certainly some difference there must be betwixt holding and receiving, betwixt affirming as true, and affirming as tradition. He that knows that three years agoe the Pope and his conclave made a decrce to confirme some doctrines maintainin'd by the Mol…nists against others, may be yet to seek, whether before that Bull came out, ten or twenty years agoe, that Church held those doctrines, and without knowing of that, he cannot be said to know what is tradition, even in the Romane Church of this last age, in that particular. And so still by S. W. his good leave, I shall be so far moved by the consideration of the difficulty for the multitude in the Romane Church to understand tradition, as to resolve, though I deem them erroneous, yet not to despise them.
Only let me assure him, I did not think that the Romanists themselves did thus industriously or affectedly keep traditions reserved from the sight of the people, like the ark of the Testament and Moses tables, as he expresses it, I did rather believe that they were too prodigal of that treasure, that they communicated to them many more traditions, than ever were by their ancestors really received, imposed on them many things for traditions, which were the erroneous doctrines of men. And the only things which I seriously spake of being Apostolical traditions, the distance of the object, and the want of light was that, which in my conceit, rendred this search difficult to the multitude, and not only the reservedness of the Romanist, who yet I must fear hath fail'd also in this kinde, keeping close some parts of Apostolical tradition, else the power of Bishops and Primates in each nation would appear to be greater, and the Authority of the one Bishop of Rome much less than now adays is pretended.
What he adds sixthly for the comparing the Romanists and our persecutions, is founded in a willing mistake. The prosperity of the Romane Church I spake of, being not that of the English Romanists here at home, but of those every where of their Communion, which sure hath long been such, as to give them occasion, to describe it by the City set on an hill, and among the notes of the Church, to set down Prosperity for one; And that being all that was pretended or thought of by me, I deserved not his so serious rebuke for that.
Any more than lastly, for saying they had the literal sound of Hoc est corpus meum for their doctrine of transubstantia…ion, which sure if they have not, they have nothing imaginable to pretend for it, for as for the Fathers and Councels, and perpetual doctrine and practice of Gods Church, which he is pleased to vouch for recommending that sense of Christs words to him, it will want much better proofs, than that of his affirming it.
After his lastly, he hath one peale against the Doctors nonsense, in saying we are far from casting them out of the Church. To which end he asks, Whither we would have cast them? and how we can cast them out of a thing that never was?] To which I answer, first, that casting out of the Church signifies, I suppose, all kinds of excommunicating, or renouncing communion with any; And that I did no otherwise mention this, than that they by having first cast us out, made it impossible for us to be guilty of it; And I should be glad to be shew'd where the nonsense of that speech consists, or with what shew of sense he could mention my speaking of casting them out, when I distinctly said it was an impossible thing, and only rendred those so many reasons for our not despising them, and not for our not casting them out?
Secondly, supposing this Church of England to be a particular Church (as I may have leave to suppose it) and that S. W. was baptized a member of this particular Church (as I believe also he was) what difficulty can there be in conceiving the manner, how our Church might cast out S. W.
Nay Thirdly, it being manifest, that there is a rejecting from Communion, which the members of one Church may be guilty of toward the members of another, viz. the disacknowledging that other to be a member of the Catholick Church, and so, as much as in them lies, giving judgeme…t to the casting her out of all the society of Christians, and it being as evident, that that was the thing, which this latter part of the discourse of schism treated of, contrary to union fraternal, 'twere, I say, no other wise impossible, but from their having done it first, for us thus to cast out the whole Church of Rome, it being no miracle for one particular Church thus to break and refuse Communion with another.
He will have one word more ere yet he will leave this point; And there are foure syllables of some length in that one word, The breviate of the first of them is, that in the Reformation we judg'd and despised our Governors; of the second, that many of our brethren since have writ books to shew that Governor is Antichrist; of the third, that the whole world before by their contrary belief condemn our new reformed doctrine; of the fourth, that they despise not our persons, but only our reasons, as being on fallible grounds —] fit to be railed at, to the end of the paragraph.
To these I answer briefly, To the first, That the Pope, whose power only we cast out, and judged it an usurpation over us, might most justly be discharged from that his usurped power, without the guilt of judging or despising any of our true and legal Governors.
To the second, that as I am none of those who have written any Book or line to shew that the Pope is Antichrist, so I presume they among us, that have at any time done it, have neither judg'd our Governor, the Bishop of Rome being not such, nor yet the Church of Rome it self, which he hath hitherto told me, that we acknowledge to be a true Church, which we could not do if we judg'd it to be Antichristian, but only the Court of Rome, in respect of some enormous practises, chargeable particularly on that, and not common to all those that preserve Communion with them.
To the third, that the Church Universal of the first and purest times, which yet is a considerable part of that all, is not, cannot be pretended to have believed contrary to our reformed doctrine, and so we were far from judging or despising that vast authority, when we only desired to reforme the errors that had crept into these latter and corrupter ages, acknowledging still the foundation to have remained intire among those, whom we thus desired to reform.
To the fourth, that I no otherwise charged on them the despising of us, than as they rejected us from their Communion (which in the Apostles time was the noxious effect of despising) and that sure belongs to our persons and not to our reasons, unless it be, that without any respect to them, they still continue their uncharitableness, and indeed finde our reasons such, that despising or seeming to do so, is one of their skilfullest arts of (diverting rather than) replying to them.
After his thus large survey of this second sort of schism against mutual unity and charity in the ninth and tenth Chap. of the tract of schism, It is strange he should think fit to close his answer to them with this observation, that I have omitted the two chief branches of schism, first, from the body of the Church, and secondly, from General Councels] whereas the schism against mutual or fraternal communion belonged expressly to the former of these, and the General councel being a representative of the whole Church, any schism from Councels truly General, is by me most willingly acknowledged to be schism from the whole Church. But of this I have spoken at large in the Reply Chap. 3. Sect. 1. and so am no farther importuned by any difficulty in his fifth Sect.