The Disarmers Dexterities Examined, Chapter 7 · Section 1
SECT. I.
The second species of Schism. Ʋnity of faith among brethren. The Apostles Institutions reducible to Faith. Disobedience to Superiors, without casting out Government. My method vindicated. The Popes supremacy not sixt by any appointment of Christ. The Bishop of Chalcedon his confession that tis not de fide that it is jure divino; The Doctors of Paris. Jeroms testimony of S. Peter being made head. Christian unity equally conserved by all the Apostles plantations. Vigour of tradition in Rome, not for ever.
I come now to his third Part, which begins with some quaint observations on my eighth Chapter. And for the introducing of the first of them, he falls very early into an open falsification of my words, against the plain testimony of his own, and the meanest readers eyes; for having duly set down the second sort of schism, (now to be treated of) an offence against the mutual unity, peace, and charity which Christ left among his Disciples] in the very next line he will abreviate this, and call it schism against charity, and then one species of this second sort, being a departure from the unity of the faith &c. Here is a special infirmity observed in the Doctors method, that he makes faith and charity all one, putting his schism against faith for the first species of schism against mutual charity] But tis evident this was not my fault, but his mis-representation. The g…nus which I divided into those species, was schism against the mutual unity peace and cha…ity, (as mutual notes aequality of fellow brethren, opposite to the relations of subordination) and there being an unity of faith between fellow-brethren, as well as of charity, tis visible that the departure from the unity of Faith, is a species of that 2d. kinde of schism, though not of the schism against charity, and so there is an end of his first subtilty.
And the next is like unto that, whether for want of understanding, or of somewhat else, I cannot define [the Dr. saith he, ranks the rejecting Christs institution of government, under this second schism against charity, which was the first head hitherto treated of, i. e. offence against subordination] But I answer, 1. as before, that tis departure from mutual Ʋnity, of which I make this a species, and not of schism against charity alone. Secondly, this is not coincident with the former kinde, the offence against subordination, but falls under this head of departure from the Ʋnity of the Faith, by way of reduction at least (as I there set it) or so as to be comp…ehended under it. For the objects of Faith being the doctrines of Christ and the Apostles, &c. the Institutions of Christ, and the Apostles are comprehended under that head, as being taught by them to be practised by us, (for that is the meaning of an Instit…tion) and the manner of Government, which the A…ostles left for the Church, being the matter of one of these, hence arises the propriety of this reduction, and consequently the casting out of the Church of God that form of Government, which Christ or his Apostles placed in it, or instituted, is a branch of offence, by reduction at least, against the unity of the Faith, a not beleeving, or not acknowledging the whether necessity, or but lawfulness or even expedience of that form, which so great an authority, as is that of Christ or his Apostles, not only countenanced and practised, but fixt for continuance in the Church. As for his way of arguing to the contrary, because, saith he, there can neither be subordination without Government, nor Government without subordination] it is founded in a very thin sophism which will presently be seen through, for meaning by Government, as tis plain I do, that particular form of Government, which Christ or his Apostles instituted, and by subordination, that regular living under the Government of all our lawful superiors, as it evidently signified in the former part of the discourse of schism, tis thence evident, that there may be Government without this subordination, i. e. the same man that acknowledges the Government of the Church by Bishops, may yet divide and separate from his own Bishop, and he that separates from his Bishop, may yet not deny, nor cast out the Episcopal order out of the Church, and so besides that first sort of schism which was an offence against subordination, i. e. a breaking off from the Communion of, and obedience to their lawful superiors, there may be also another species, referring to Government, a disacknowledging or rejecting the due Government: As supposing an Aristocratical Government of the Church, whether by Bishops and Metropolitans, or with the addition of Primates also, to be that which was placed in the Church by the Apostles, then as the reducing this either to Democrasie or Anarchie on the one side, is a departure from the Apostolical institution, so the erecting a Monarchick Government, a Papal universal Pastorship over all, will be a departure from the same institution, on the other side. And so certainly there was good reason of this Method of mine, and all the confusion that was phansied, was but an invention of S. W.
A third now follows, which came out of the very same forge, for he will needs perswade us, that there is no difference between breach of external peace, and want of that charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian] which is in effect, as if he said, there is no difference betwixt external and internal, for to that internal charity it is, that that last species belongs. Thus succesful is he in all his nice observations.
After this foreign, wherein none but the aire was wounded, or fled before him, he now advances to his more serious strokes, and after some recital of my words, (which when he hath never an objection in the forge, he can perform well enough) he pitches on my answer to their objection, that by casting out the authority of the Bishop of Rome, we have cast off the head of all christian unity: And my answer being in these words, 1. that the Bishop of Rome, was never appointed by Christ to be the head of all Christian unity, or that Chu…ch to be a conservatory (for ever) of all Christian truth, any more then any other Bishop or Church of the Apostles ordaining or planting, he designes great advantage by the skilfull exercise of his faculties, on these words. For 1. saith he, what signifies, the Bishop of Rome was not appointed by Christ? Christ saith he, not being on earth when S. Peters successors sat there, and when he ordain'd S. Peter ch…ef of the Apostles, S. Peter was not yet Bishop of Rome] I answer, that my words exacted not of him the proof of such a personal or immediate appointment, I shall yet be content, if by any other means more remote, by any certain, though not close connection or consequence, he shall prove that the Pope was ever designed or foreappointed by Christ to be the head of all Christian unity. And truly if this be not done, I must suppose that we are secured from the guilt of that sort of schism, of which in that place I was treating, which consists in a departure from those rules, appointed by Christ for the founding or upholding in his Church the unity of doctrine, upon this one score of our re…ecting the Papal supremacy in the Church.
For if Christ hath no way, mediately, or immediately, fixt any supremacy in any single person in the Church, or in a succession in some one singular See, or if that single person, that shall be said to be appointed to succeed Christ in all his power, so as no other succeeds him, shall not also appear to have left the Bishop of Rome to all posterity, as his haeres de asse, inheriter of that universal supremacy, vested in him by Christ, then certainly the casting off any such pretended power of the Bishop of Rome, is not the departure from any rule for the founding, or upholding of unity appointed by Christ, nor consequently a rupture from that faith, which was once delivered unto the saints, which is the sort of schism I there spake of.
And because S. W. was not at leisure to speak home to this question, whether or no it were by any divine right, or institution of Christ, that this supremacy in the Church belongs to the Bishop of Rome. It may not be amiss to take notice, what his ordinary the Bishop of Chalcedon in his answer to the Bishop of Derry hath, with less reservation, acknowledged in this matter.p. 69. To us saith he, it sufficeth that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters successor, and this all Fathers testifie, and all the Catholick church beleeveth, but whether he be so jure divino or humano, is no point of faith, and many things are de fide which are not de jure divino. Where not to examine the truth of the affirmation, that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters successor, it being yet as certain, that he is S. Pauls successor, as S. Peters, nor of the close, that some things are de fide, which are not jure divino. All that I take notice of is, that when to conclude the point in hand, that the casting off the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, is an act of schism, as that signifies a departure from the faith of Christ, or those rules which Christ appointed to uphold the unity of doctrine, two things must necessarily be proved by the Romanist, 1. that this supreme power over all was by Christ given to S. Peter. 2. that the Pope is S. Peters successor in this, these are not so much as pretended to be so proved by the Romanist, as to be able to inferr the conclusion. For that they may do so, it is necessary both that S. Peters right to the supremacy, and the Popes from him, should be de jure divino, and that it should be an article de fide that they are so, for if both of them be not jure divino, then neither is the Popes supremacy, which depends upon these two, as a conclusion on premises, jure divino, nor consequently any such appointment, or institution of Christs, as that the casting off that shall be the casting of a doctrine, or institution of Christs. And if it be not de fide that they are both thus jure divino, (as that Bishop saith they are not) then tis no breach of the unity of faith to deny these to be of divine right, nor consequently to deny the Popes supremacy to be of divine right, which depends on these, and cannot be of divine right, if these are not, which was all that I had to demonstrate.
And as, if this be granted me, there is very little more, which I need contend for, in this whole matter of our present debate, so if my intelligence do not deceive me, it is the common opinion among the Doctors of Paris, that the Pope hath not universal jurisdiction jure divino, (and then certainly not from tu es Petrus, or Pasce oves) and that his headship of the Church consists only, in being Primae sedis Episcopus, the Bishop of the first See;
As for the testimony of S. Hierome, which S. W. here opposeth to my affirmation [that among the twelve one was chosen, that a head being constituted, the occasion of schism might be taken away] 1. those words seem not to be S. Hierom's, but Jovinian's, for so it begins. At dicis super Petrum sundatur Ecclesia, But you say the Church is founded on Peter.
Secondly, whose soever that testimony is, it hath been by me formerly produced, Ch. n. Sect. 10. 1, 5. &c.and answered, and must of necessity be so interpreted, as shall be reconcileable with his words in the same place, that the Church which was founded on Peter, was founded on all the Apostles as well as on him, and that ex aequo aequally, the strength of the Church was established on them all.
And thirdly, of S. Hieroms opinion in that place it is evident, that what ever priviledge it was that he allowed S. Peter, it was but upon the account of his seniority, either of years, or of his reception into the Discipleship, but rather of the former, for so it there follows. Cur non Johannes electus est virgo? Aetati delatum est quia Petrus senior erat. Why was not John who was a virgin chosen, or preferred before the rest? (so electus est, is in the ensuing words interpreted by proeferretur, not in Dominion over, but in place before the other Apostles) his answer is, Because Peter was the Elder, the deference being given to his age: Which being but a personal advantage, not communicable to all that should sit in the Romane See after him, is no way applyable to the benefit of the Romanist, who is to prove the Popes supremacy, and not only the Primacy of S. Peter.
And fourthly, if the utmost were granted that can be pretended from these words, it could never inforce or acquire to the Pope any more than the dignity of the Prime Patriarch, who in case of extraordinary d fficulty, or contention falling out between two Primates, neither of them subject to any superior Bishop, or the like, might by way of voluntary appeal by mutual consent of parties, be resorted unto (and that would be beneficial to the unity of the Church, in case the Bishop of Rome persisted in the footsteps of S. Pet…r, and no way varied from him) But still this is nothing to the plenitude of power, as of an universal Pastor, which was that which I had at that time under consideration. And so all S. W. his hopefull fabrick, which depended on S. Hieromes words, is fallen to the ground, without any farther pains of ours, toward the demolishing of it. As
When he addes thirdly, that hence it follows that Christian unity is conserved by the Bishop of Rome, more than any other Bishop, contrary to the Doctors assertion] this is not in these words by him recited, of any force against the Doctors assertition, who made the comparison not simply betwixt the Bishop or Church of Rome, and all other Bishops, but betwixt that Church and any other Church of the Apostles plantation: And sure many such there were, as well as the Church of Rome, and more ancient than the Church of Rome, as the Church of Jerusalem and Antioch, the Churches of Asia, and many others, and consequently if Rome have any priviledge above others, it is not from any appointment of Christ, whether mediate, or immediate, that it thus hath it.
Fourthly, saith he, the Doctor aequivocates in the word Roman Church, and takes it in a sence which he knows we never meant it, our acception of it being of the universal Church, communicating with the mother Church of Rome, his of the private Diocess of Rome it self.] But it is manifest I did not aequivocate, I spake of the authority of the Bishop of Rome, meaning just as he doth, the pretended authority over the whole Church of God, for else how could I speak of our casting out that authority, sure we never cast out, or denied his having authority in his own Diocess; But then to deny the truth of their pretension, and to appeal to my former proofs, that the whether Church or Bishop of Rome never had any appo…ntment from Christ to be the head of all …hristian unity, more than every other Church or Bishop of the Apostles planting and ordaining, (which was all I said in that place) this was as plain on the other side, and no kinde of aequivocating in that.
Fifthly, When of the private Church of Rome it self he saith, that the Fathers hold that it had a greater vigor of Christian tradition than any other Church,] though this he hath not proved, yet the yielding of it is perfectly reconcilable with all that I there said; For 1. it was of Christs appointment, that I spake, and whatsoever reverence the Fathers pay that See, yet they affirm not of Christ, that he by any peculiarity of promise conveyed any such priviledge to that See, of having a greater vigor than all other Churches of Apostolical plantation; Secondly, it was of the perseverance or conserving for ever all Christian truth, that I spake, and against that the Fathers say nothing, but speak of it as of a matter of fact, that in their time Christian tradition was most eminently preserved there, not undertaking to divine, that it should to all perpetuity be so faithful a repository. Nay tis not*Ch. 5. Sect. 8. n. 1. long since I told him out of Anselm, his prediction of the iniquity of that See, which should cause many Churches to depart from her. And it is small advantage to have this vigor once, if it have since betrayed that truth, and obtruded Pontifical dictats instead of such Tradition.
And lastly, When he is so unsatisfied with my interposing this word [forever] as if, saith he, Christ might perhaps appoint her to conserve truth for a while, but meant after some time to discharge her of that office, I answer, that speaking, as we now do, of the particular See of Rome, there is no colour of appointment or determination of Christs, that it should for any time be a conservatory of all Christian truth, any otherwise than it is his will and command and appointment, that every Church should conserve all Christian truth, and therefore that was not the motive to my putting in the word [forever] but because to make good the Romanists pretension, that the casting off the authority of the Bishop of Rome, is the casting off the Faith of Christ, it is necessary not only that that Church be apppinted by Christ to be a conservato…y of all Christian doctrine, but that it be secured to continue so for ever, else as the Churches of Asia, which were once very zealous conservatories of Christian truth, afterward forsook their first zeal, and admitted foul heresies, so it may be true of the Church of Rome also.