The Disarmers Dexterities Examined, Chapter 7 · Section 6
SECT. VI.
Ʋnsincere professors admitted to Communion, and such as may turn Schismaticks. No paternal relation of Rome to us. The foundation. Tradition. Denying Romish Infallibility the great Schism.
HIs fourth Section sets out with a full cry, wilfully misunderstanding my words, concerning our excluding no Christian from our Communion. By Christian he will understand all nominal Christians, who though by all the world else call'd hereticks, and which though they deny all the points of Christs doctrine, yet profess Christs name.]
But first when I spake of Christians, it were hard that my words should indeed be understood of the quite contrary, of hereticks, and assumers of the name, without any of the reali…y of the Christian faith, that the word Christian must signifie, and be understood in the notion of unchristian, to enable S.W. to dispute, or confute me.
Secondly, when I expounded Christian, by such as hold the foundation &c. must it still be suggested, that all the no Christians are such, that Simon Magus himself (whom he here names in ranke with my Christians) do indeed acknowledge the foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles? I wish it were now considered, who is the hospitable friendly person, the most charitable to hereticks. Tis true indeed our Communion is such, that hypocrites who are not uprightly what they profess to be, may finde reception among us, (but 'tis as true that hereticks continuing such are cast out by us) Our judgement truly is not so inerrable, that we can search mens hearts, or look into those closets by any other perspective, than that which their actions and professions allow us. And I have not yet been assured that S. W. his infallible Church hath assumed to be scrutatrix cordium to have any sure test, to descry and purge out of its bowels all unsincre professors, that are not really what they pretend to be. I am sure S. Peter himself, to whom they pretend to owe their infallible chair, did baptize Simon Magus, when he had not foreign the genuine purpose,Cyr. Hieros. foreign. p. 2. as S. Cyril saith of him, and so foreign, had his body baptized, but not his minde illuminated, which he did not long disguise, but demonstrated it to all by very early actions. Act. 8.23. and after proved the foreign the first born of Satan, and beyond all the world beside, set himself against S. Peter, who had thus baptized, i. e. admitted him into his Church. And unless the modern glasses have helpt the Church of Rome to means of profounder inspection than S. Peter had then met with, I doubt not but they will upon consideration acknowledge, that hypocrites may impose on them, as well as us, and that those that are baptized into a Church, may heretically and schismatically oppose it, and that this is but common to men, and cannot hope to be remedied, untill Rome Christian, as well as Rome heathen assume to be deisied, and to communicate the same divine nature to their frailer brethren. And now let S. W. say, if this be not the full importance of his first answer.
Next he is to please himself with my phrase of excluding none from Communion, that will either filially or fraternally embrace it with us, i. e. in plain terms, that the Governors of our Church do not causelessly excommunicate the sons of this Church, nor any true son of any other true Church, for all such they look on as brethren. And here he hath great Ovations, that we can admit none that will paternally communicate with us, that we have as much curtesie as may be, but not a dram of humility nor subjection to superiors] But the matter is clear, we do not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome our superior. All that are so, we obediently live under, as many of us as are under authority, but do not exact from our English Primate that he should acknowledge another forraign supreme over him and us. And that is all the news S. W. hath told us in that paragraph.
Next when I say we acknowledge the foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles, he must first perswade his Reader, that I call him fool, and then ask Mr D. what he means by acknowledging the foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles? And who knows but I may again be accused of calling my Catechist fool, if I answer this question? But I shall do it in as secure a stile as I can, and assure him I mean, what I have written an intire treatise on, the Depositum both in the scriptures and by Oral tradition of the Apostles committed to the Churches which they planted, of which the Church of Rome was one, and but one. And this supersedes all the force of this Paragraph. For certainly more than this S. W. will not pretend himself to mean by the foundation (as p. 266. he confesses) only he hath a reserve, I know, that his Church must have the inclosure of the priviledge to expound to us infallibly, and tell us what this is, first to interpret Scripture, and then to testifie of tradition. And herein I doe not oblige my self to comply with him, as upon many other reasons, so upon this, because I have no infallible proof offered, nor any other indeed, besides their own affirming it, that they are infallible in either of these.
When the remainder of his d sple sure falls on me for talking of fundamentals, and not naming what they are, I again answer, that I wrote a treatise of that subject, which was too big to come in by way of parenthesis in that place, and therefore stai'd for the Press, till that of schism was printed off. But saith he, if we thus interpret the foundation, we must admit only Catholicks, since only they (i. e. in his stile, only the Romanists) hold this foundation For this I must not demand any proof or reason, but am to look on it, as one of S. W. his indemonstrable principles, which are to be confirm'd only à posteriori, by his saying it, or by some such like irrefutable Topick, and howsoever severe an exacter he is of probations from others, I shall not so much as expect from him, that he shall afford that any probation.
But it seems his heart misgave him, after the delivery of those words, for fear we should grant him his position, and according to his argument oblige our selves to admit the Romanists to our Communion (which yet he knows we never refused them, if they would sincerely come to it) and therefore he presently retracts again, we must not, saith he, admit them neither, being it seems resolved, that the ball of contention shall be held up for ever; otherwise I assure him we should not yet break with him upon those terms, which alone here he mentions. Since, saith he, you deny this way of bringing down faith to be sufficient, it follows that you must not admit Catholicks neither] But what is this way, which he saith we acknowledge not to be sufficient? why he had before set down that, the s lid sense of Christs law written and planted in the tables of mens hearts by the Apostles, and thence by a well linkt chain of universal tradition derived to our times] This being all, and tradition, or planting in mens hearts no way excluding written traditions, which we ordinarily call Scrip…ure (for 'twere hard that a thing should be the less delivered by the A…ostles, because it was w…itten by them) I shall yet continue my hospitable humor, and resolving this solid sense of Christ law derived from the Apostles to our times by universal tradition to be perfectly sufficient (say S. W. what he please) to all that thus receive it, and live by it, I shall admit S. W. upon this profession to our Com…union, and then I hope, if he be not one of those …ominal Christians, which even now he talkt of, there might be an end of this controversie.
But the fit of railing seiseth him again in the next paragraph, and the mention of our earnest desire to have the freedom of external Communion with others, and the addition of a very few words of Scripture, the one heart and one lip, hath under the notion of preaching, so put him out of all patience, that his pen never dropt ranker gall since the beginning of his work; and truly we that are wont not to invite, but to dehort railers from our Communion, are not, whilst he is in this moode, very fond of beeing admitted into his company. Only by the way we shall learn from him (because fits of rage bring forth mens own thoughts undisguisedly, and so deliver some truth) what is the only impediment of our readmission to his favour and Communion. First, if we will but reacknowledge a certainty, and secondly, the never erring rule of Faith, and thirdly, the voice of the Church, i. e. three sounds to the same sense, then we shall be received with open arms &c. From whence I conclude, that all our schism consists in not acknowledging the Romane infallibility, and so that we dispute in vain all this while, whilst we speak on any other theme but that.
And truly I that have written a full tract on that, long before, in defense of the Lord of Falkland against the answer and reply of the Romanist, did not think I was again bound to reprint that, and croud it into this period.