The Disarmers Dexterities Examined, Chapter 7 · Section 9
SECT. IX.
Of judging. S. W. his pretended moderation. Our not hearing any other Church. His impossible affirmations of their infallibility. One faith. S. Cyprians temper Pope Stephanus's temper. Cyprians words to Cornelius. The priviledge of the Roman See in Cyprians time. Cyprians behaviour to it. Firmilian of Stephanus. S. W. his sence of Faith without knowledge. Difference betwixt fundamentals and superstructures.
HIs fifth Sect is designed for justification of the Romanists charity in judging and d…spising us, and first for judging: And he presumes he hath given us testimonies of their great moderation, as well as no uncharitable…ess, that when we acknowledge no Church to be heard, he makes us only Schismaticks and hereticks, and doth not advance to those harsh terms which our Saviour himself hath laid down, of accounting us heathens and Publicans] But first I may have leave to demand how he which thinks those words of Christ to belong to us, as we stand (truly) chargable of not hearing the Church of Rome, can avoid proceeding to that higher pitch, or harsher terms, of accounting us very heathens and Publicans? Or if those words do not at all belong to us, how then from them he can justifie his milder Censures of judging us schismaticks and hereticks? The Dilemma is obvious, either that text of Mat. 18.17. is his direction for his judging of us, or it is not; If it be, how can he escape accounting us heathens and Publicans? If it be not, how can it justifie his calling us hereticks? or indeed to what purpose was it at all produced in this matter? Secondly, is it indeed true, and doth not S. W. prevaricate when he pretends to thus much moderation, as to bestow on us those milder, and not proceed to the other harsher terms against us? He hath by and by these words. How can we then, seeing evidently they heard not any Church judge otherwise than that our Saviours words are true, i. e. that they are in a sad condition] and then what that sad condition must signifie, 'tis easy to resolve, from the presumed truth of those words of Christ, thus applied to us. And I am sure we have these words in their Canon Law, Peccatum paganitatis incurrit, quisquis dum Christianum se asserit, Sedi Apostolicae obedire contemnit, He incurs the crime of heathenisme, whosoever affirming himself a Christian contemns the Apostolick See, citing the words of Samuel, and the application of Pope Gregory the seventh, that disobedience is the s…n of witchcraft; and non acquiescing as the sin of Idolatry. And it being certain on one side, that we do profess our selves Christians, and yet think not our selves obliged to obey the See of Rome, nor consequently have paid that obedience thereunto, I see not how those principles, which have carried S. W. so far as he professes, should set him down, before they had brought him home to that highest and most immoderate pitch.
But then thirdly, whatsoever our lot be, we must still insist, that the Romane Church hath no due claim to our obedience by any right devolved to them from Christ or his Apostles, or the an…ient Canons, and so still we are really safe from the penalty of [si ecclesiam non audiverit] though we have not pai'd the desired obedience to that See; And till S. W. hath proved the justice of their claim, and of that consequence, that he that hears not their Church, and yet hears his own, doth yet acknowledge no Church to be heard, he will never be able to justifie the charity of their judging us, upon force of that text.
And when he father extends his words, that at our Reformation we joyn'd not our selves with any other Church whom we might be said to heare] the answer is obvious that a national Church. foreign, independent from any other forrain jurisdiction, needed not to joyn with any other Church, as to hear, i. e. in Christs sense, to obey that; The fraternal Communion is all that is our duty in respect of others, the filial, or that of subordination or subjection was not incumbent on us; And sure S. W. that doth not pretend that the Greek or any other Church, save only the See of Rome hath authority over us, had much forgat himself, when he made this any part of our charge, that we joyn'd not with, so as to hear any other Church.
His second ground, on which he justifies their judging to be no uncharitableness, is the infallability of their Church, which saith he, their ancestors have beleieved ever since Christs doctrine dawned to the dark world] which is in effect, that the Church of Rome was infallible before it was, had its inerrability before it's beeing (for without doubt Christs doctrine did thus first dawn to the dark, i. e. the Gentile world, before it illuminated the Romane Climate, many other Churches of the Gentiles having received the faith more early than that of Rome) but also that it's infallibility was thus antiently believed; By whom he tels us not, but hath set it in such large pompous terms, that it is not only not true, but not passible, by any other means, save that of divination; And of this we have not heard that any antient Augur hath predicted, and now I suppose 'tis too late, so many hundred years after, for S. W. to take that office upon him. In a word, to judge us hereticks, and defend the charity of it, because their Church is infallible, to prove that infallible because they have believed it so, and for the confirming of that, to vouch no one testimony, and yet to resolve, that so 'twas believed before it was possible either to be, or to be believed, is the pregnant and solid way of probation, by which his charity is defended beyond all possible confute in the second place.
His third way of propugning it is that text of scripture, One faith, one hope, one baptisme, from whence he resolves that either they or we must erre against faith under penalty of maintaining a contradiction, and then by Christs words he that beleeves not is condemned already, he that is certain he beleeves, and hath that one faith, cannot make conscience of judging the other, since the other is condemned already; Nay, saith he, if he judge him not to be judged already, he must judge himself to be a selfe-judg'd unbeleever] And then, beyond all expectation, here is suddenly a cry raised, of the Doctors blundring, and destroying all reason, and that serves for a new made-dish in the bill of fare, to fill up the one and thirtieth room at his table: To this plea of his the answer were already given, if we had but as little charity, or so much ill language as he, to call him heretick, or any other such ill name, which he can frankly bestow on us, for then the one faith being as strongly, i. e. by our own words, confirm'd to be on our side, as it is now concluded to be on his, by his own presumption; there were no syllable behinde to be farther answered. But without making use of such an auxiliary, which I so much dislike in him, I answer secondly.
That each of us may very possibly have imbraced that one faith, which the Apostle speaks of, nay 'tis most evident each hath; For what was that one faith, but those articles of belief, which were then deposited in all Churches, and into which all Christians were baptized in that one baptism? And 'tis certain both they, and we have uniformly received that in the Apostolick Creed, as that from the traditions, which in every Church were to be met with, was explained by the Nicene Fathers, and established by that, and the following Occumenic…l Councels to be the one faith of all Christians.
Our agreement therefore in all these heads of faith, is no doubt sufficient to give us title joyntly to that one Faith, and for other differences which are reconcileable with the believing of these, be they true or false, they are certainly no part of this faith. If they shall appear to be true, they are like Gold built on the foundation, and so superstructure not foundation; if they be false (as we must believe your additions to be, and we that have no additions at all, cannot be accused by you for what we have not) they are then the combustible matter, the hay and stubble, which will take fire, as soon ever that triall comes. Herein therefore evidently lies the difference betwixt you and us. We conceive you guilty of many foule errors, but yet do not pronounce you unbeleevers, because the one faith deposited in the Church is received, and not rejected by you, but you that have no cause to pretend, that we have superstructed any such positive errors, and yet as little doubt, but we have received the one faith, as that signifies the Apostles depositum, or the Nicene Fathers explication of it, from the tradition of the Church, do yet accuse, and condemne us as unbeleevers, because we receive not all other doctrines, that your Church (contrary to the express command of the Ephesine Fathers) hath thought fit to impose on us. And our telling you this, brings upon us a worse censure yet, the charge of destroying our reason, as well as our faith; He that will say what we now say, must it seems, be sent a grasing with Nebuchadnezzar, we were infidels before, but now we are become irrational; Ere we accused you of uncharitableness, we were but heathens, but since, we are metamorphosed into brutes. And this is the sum of S. W. his third defence or Apologie for his judging us. I see 'tis our wisest way not to complain, lest some ruder fate still remain for us, as the proof that he is not uncharitable.
His fourth defence is, that their judging may indeed be error, but malice or uncharitableness it cannot] But this having been the Cath. Gent. his allega…ion, hath received it's answer in the Reply, ch. 10.
What he answers to the words of S. Cyprian, neminem damnantes, neminem à communione nostrâ arcentes, tha… he speaks of his own temper towards the rest of Gods Church (and that about a private opinion only) but neither he, nor any other Father admitted to their communion those who had been condemned by all the Churches in communion with the See of Rome] comes now next to be considered, and to it I shall answer these few things. First, that my words having on purpose designed to shew the likeness of our, and the unlikeness of the Romanists temper, to that of Cyprian, and consequently the danger of schism to them from judging of us, if this be granted, as necessarily it must, that this was Cyprians temper, and that this ought to be other mens temper also on the like occasions, this is all that I need ask in this matter. For that this rule should be no farther applicable than to the matter of the present difference betwixt S. Cyprian and others, concerning the baptisme of hereticks, or that it is not equally (by parity of reason) to be extended to all other differences which touch not the foundation, there is no other reason here tendred, but that this of rebaptization was not, but these other matters of difference between the Romanists and us are defined by the Church: To this then I answer, first, that the contrary to S. Cyprians opinion was at that time defined by the then-Bishop of Rome, and earnestly maintained by him, and some others with him, as shall by and by appear. Secondly, that betwixt the Romanist and us, the question being principally this, whether the Romane Church have done well to enter so many new articles into their belief, and to exact the profession of them from all that are admitted to their Communion, quite contrary to the express interdict of the Ephesine Canon so often mentioned, and withall the matter of those articles being so farr from infallible or certain truth, that we doubt not to evidence of some of them, that they implie a contradiction, and so an impossibility to be true, and the ground on which all are founded at once, the Roman infallibility, being it self farr from being induced by any infallible medium; These things I say, being considered, I desire that Cyprians temper, may be compared with the temper of those that thus defined these articles de fide, and in what degree soever it shall appear, that the making those definitions de fide, and condemning and excluding all that cannot uprightly and cordially imbrace them, hath been contrary to S. Cyprians temper and rule for the preserving the unity of the Church, so far those decrees may be rescinded, and cassate, or if not, still I suppose it clear, that this is quite contrary to S. Cyprians rule, and that all the judging and excommunicating of others, that is consequent to this, is as the principle it self, to which it is consequent, i. e. destructive to the peace of the Church, and that is schismatical. Thus I am sure*Inter Cypr. Epist. 75. Pam. Ed. p. 117. Firmilianus, and the Eastern Bishops with him pronounce of Stephanus Bishop of Rome, lites & dissentiones &c. What contentions and divisions have you caused (saith he) through the Churches of the whole world? What a great sin have you heaped on your self, whilst you have cut of your self from so many flocks or Churches, for you have cut off your selfe. Doe not deceive your self, for sure he is truly a schismatick, who hath made himself an Apostate from the Communion of Ecclesiastick union, for whilst you think you may excommunicate all from you, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti, you have excommunicated your self alone from all others. And so on, much more to the same purpose.
Thirdly, Because it is here by S. W. suggested, that as Cyprian knew very well what belonged to Church order and discipline, so neither he nor any other Father admitted to Communion those who had been condemned by the Romane See, and the Churches in Communion with that] I desire it may be remembred, first, what difference there was betwixt the condition of the Romane See in Cyprians, and in these dayes, no one of those …octrines were then defi…ed, which now are by them defined and imposed on all communicants, no infallibility of that Chu…ch assumed or pretended, No monarchick authority over all other Churches and Bishops, as appears most evidently by those very words of Cyprian, Ep. 55. to Cornelius, which Baronius and Bellarmine make such use of to the contrary, when on o…casion of Cornelius's receiving some to his Communion, which Cyprian had censured, he tells him that this is the great cause of schisms and heresies in the Church, quod sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, *Pamel. Ed. p. 68.nec unus i… Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos & ad tempus judex vice Ch…isti cog… tatur, that the Bishop is not obey'd, that he which is …lone the Bishop and judge in Christs stead, is not considered as such, i. e. that when Cyprian and such as he, had excommunicated offendors, the Bishop of Rome received them to his Communion, as the*Pax vera falsae pacis mendacio tollitur, salutaris sinus matris noverca intercedente precluditur &c. p. 69. Honor ergo datur Deo, cum sublatâ paenitentiâ nec ullâ exomologesi factâ despectis Episcopis atque calcatis — communicatio non communicantibus offeratur? Ibid. Cum statutum sit omnibus nobis — ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen admissum, & singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta, quam regat unusquisque & gubernet, rationem sui actus domino redditurus, oportet utique eos quibus presumus non circumcursare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem sua subdola… & fallaci temeritate collidere — Ib. p. 70. Nec utilis aut consultus est pastor qui ita morbidas oves gregi admiscet — Ib. Nulla cum talibus commercia copulentur — simus ab eis tam separati quam sunt illi de ecclesia profugi — p. 71. rest of the Epistle makes it evident; His words also of Pope Stephan in the beginning of Ep. 74. ad Pompeium, abundantly evidence the same, being written with that sharpness, that was not agreeable from an inferior to his superior pastor. All that then belong'd to the See of Rome S. Augustine sets down, by*Cont. 2. Ep. Pelag l. 1. preeminence in celsiori fastigio speculae pastoralis, in the higher roof of the Pastoral watch Tower, which he there makes reconcileable with the communis cura omnibus nobis qui fungimur Episcopatus officio, the common care and solicitude of all Bishops, including evidently the Bishop of Rome in that number. And as long as this equality of power (allowing the Bishop of Rome the dignity of place) was thus preserved, it could be no prejudice to any other, that none that was denied Communion by the Bishop, should be allowed it by other Bishops, the same Canonical reason obliging him, that he should not receive any, that were excommunicated by any other Bishop. But then secondly, when the Bishop of Rome did not thus discharge his duty to other Bishops and Churches, the dignity of the Romane See it self did not free him from the note of schism and heresie, as is also most evident in the passages betwixt S. Cyprian and Pope Stephanus, when Stephanus had failed in his part, nostrum est, saith he, Ep. 67. consulere & subvenire, qui gubernandae Ecclesiae libram tenen…es — It is my part to consult and aid, who hold the balance of the Church — then admonishes him of his duty, Quapropter facere te oportet — and, Dirigantur in Provinciam à te literae; And Ep. 74. he tells Pompeius of Stephanus, haereticorum causam contra Christianos & contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur, he endeavours to assert the cause of hereticks against Christians and against the Church of God, and, magis ac magis errorem ejus denotabis, thou shalt more and more observe his error, accusing him of impertinence and contrariety to himself, unskilfull and improvident passages in his decree, which may serve for a competent intimation, what respect S. Cyprian bare to that See of Rome when the Bishop thereof misbehaved himself.
'Twill not be amiss here to recite what S. Augustine resolved in this matter. In his Book de Ʋnic. Bapt. Contra Pelag. c. 14. he makes this comparison betwixt these two Bishops of Carthage and Rome, Cyprian and Steven, Duo erant eminentissimarum Ecclesiarum Episcopi, ambo in unitate Catholicâ constituti. Quorum Stephanus baptismum Christi in nullo iter…ndum censebat, & hoc facientibus g…aviter succens…bat, Cyprianus autem in haeresi vel schismate baptizatos, tanquam non habentes baptismum Christi, baptizandos in Ecclesia Catholica existimabat, multi cum illo, quidam etiam cum isto sentiebant, utrique cum eis in unitate consistentes. There were two Bishops of most eminent Churches, both in Catholick unity, Steven resolved that the baptism of Christ was not to be iterated in any, and was very angry with them that did it: Cyprian thought that those that had been baptized in schism or he…esie as not having …he baptism of Christ (some of those hereticks denying the Holy Ghost, as he elsewhere presseth) should be baptized in the Catholick Church, many were of his minde, and some of S…e…hens &c. Here now is the full meaning of the words, which I briefly cited out of Cyprian, when Cyprian was on one side, and the Pope on another in a contest, that divided the Christian world into different opinions, the Pope pretending Apostolical tradition for his side, and vehemently insisting on it, S. Cyprian adhered to his opinion, opposed and refuted the Popes position and his pretention to tradition (as appears by*Cypr. Ep 75. Quantum ad id pertineat quod Stephanus dixit quasi Apostoli prohibuerint, & hoc custodiendum Apostolis tradiderint, plenissime vos respondistis, neminem tam stultum esse qui hoc credat Apostolos tradidisse — Stephanus infamans Petrum & Paulum quasi hoc ipsi tradiderint. Firmilianus in his confutation of Stephens Epistle) and never yeilded to him it it, and yet would not condemn and break Communion either with him, or with those that joyn'd with him. Adde unto this what*Cypr. Ed. Pamel. p. 115. Firmilianus farther affirms, Eos qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus observare que sunt ab origine tradita, & frustra Apostolorum authoritatem pretendere — that they at Rome do not observe all those things that were from the beginning, and that they do in vain pretend the Apostles authority, that customs Apostolical are varied by diversity of times and places, nec tamen propter hoc ab Ecclesiae Catholicae pace atque unitate discessum est, p. 117.and yet men never brake the peace and unity of the Catholick Church for this, and that when they seem to oppose custome to truth, no man can be so vain, as to think that a good plea, or any better than the Jews would be for the rejecting Christianity, or upon that account to refuse to leave darkness when he sees the light, telling Cyprian that this was the Africans case against Stephen, and that they to the custome of the Romans opposed a custome also but that of truth, ab initio hoc tenentes quod à Christo & ab Apostolo traditum est, holding from the beginning what was delivered by Christ and the Apostle.
This then was another part of S. Cyprians temper to prefer that which he resolved to be true Apostolical tradition, before that which the Romanes pretended to be such, and yet not to break Communion with them, whereas Stephanus (saith Firmilianus, at that time dissenting from so many Bishops over the world, Cypr. Ed Pam. p. 117brake the peace with all of them, sometimes with the Eastern, sometimes with the Southern or Africanes, would not admit their legates to any speech with him, forbad receiving them into their houses, denied them not only peace and communion, but house and entertainment. Whereupon Firmilian asketh this question, Is this the keeping the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace? to cut himself off from the unity of charity in all things, to estrange himself from his brethren, and contra sacramentum & fidem contumacis furore discordiae rebellare, to rebell against sacrament and faith by the furie of obstinate dissention? and then concludes, & tamen non pudet Stephanum, and yet Stephen is not ashamed to patronize and defend hereticks against the Church, p. 18.and for the vindicating of them to divide the Church, and call Cyprian a false Christ, false Apostle, deceitful workman. Whatsoever S. Cyprians temper and practice was, it seems Pope Stephen's was not so meek. Here is breach of Communion on his part, and yet the farr greatest part of the world held communion with Cyprian, when the Romane See, and those that were in communion with that, had thus divided themselves from him.
All this I hope may suffice to vindicate my vouching of Cyprians temper and rule of peaceableness, against the contrary practice and humor of the Romanist; I shall be glad now to hear, whether S. W. take any joy in the commendation that he bestowed on that Father, that he knew what belonged to Church order and discipline. For if he did, I hope we that have so exactly transcribed his copy, in this particular, have not offended against either.
What he here adds of my admitting all to our Church that call themselves Christians] was formerly shew'd to be a calumnie. And for the short but keen touch of an opinionative faith, which he mentions on occasion of my supposing that the differences between him and us, are but differences in opinion, saying that he sees no reason we should trouble our selves to write Books in defence of an opinionative faith, and adding, It were better in that case to eat and drink, shake hands and be merry, nor trouble our selves with thinking whether there be a heaven or no, which we can never come (the ground of faith being but an opinion) to any certain knowledge of.] I should hope this signifies that S. W. is advanced very nere to an end of his prizes, for sure he will never be able much to transcend this pitch, which he hath here arrived to.
To it I answer, first, that I had thought that faith is by all men distinguisht from knowledge, and that how certain, and undoubted soever the grounds of it are, yet being of things not seen, or inevident, knowledge in strict sense it cannot be; And I had thought that this was it, that made Faith and the works of faith so highly rewardable, that it is of things not seen or inevident, nay oft contradictory to the light of natural reason, or experience to flesh and blood &c. whereas the consenting to a demonstration, which alone is science or knowledge hath not been thought so magnanimous and heroical, and consequently rewardable an act, nor (by the same reason) the state of vision and comprehension, which is our reward rather. And therefore it cannot but be very strange to my ears to hear such conclusions as these, so bluntly, and without all provocation calmely delivered, that it were better to eat— i. e. turn Atheists, than only to entertain our selves with a belief of heaven, without any certain knowledge of it.
But passing this by, mee thinks it should be possible enough that there might be some difference betwixt the clear doctrines of Scripture (that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and the like, the several articles of the Apostles Creed) on one side, and all the additions and superstructions of the Romanists on the other; There are I presume, but two wayes imaginable to make them of equal certainty, either their being all equally delivered by the same authority of Apostolick tradition, or by the same Infallible testifier, the Church of Rome. And as there is very little proof for the former of these, the Apostolick tradition being no way evidenced for the particulars in debate, so for the later, (beside many other) methinks the example even now brought of Pope Steven, should ad hominem at least, to S. W. be a competent prejudice against it.
The doctrine which he taught against S. Cyprian, the Roman See then taught as eagerly as could be, affirmed and testified it to be Apostolical tradition, and custome of the Church, and as many as in this adhered to him, must be supposed to have done the like, (and S. Austin himself in many whole Books together confesseth, that the truth was on Stevens side, though the charity and humility on S. Cyprians) and so if the Romane See be infallible either in affirming or desining, or in testifying of Apostolical tradition, this doctrine of Stevens must be as certain and indubitable, as any article of the Crede. And yet S. W. himself hath even now confest, that this was but matter of Opinion, or about a private opinion only, and then I hope by parity of reason, I may be allowed to have learnt from him the same language, and to assume, that the doctrine of transubstantiation, nay of the infallibility of the Church of Rome, is no article of the Apostles Crede in our account, ought not to be so in the Romanists, and therefore in any reason they ought not to damne us, to drive us from their Communion, for not assenting to these opinionative articles, or if they do, that this is an ill foreign, or indication, that the schism is on their side, (wheresoever the truth should be found to be) if we may judge by S. Cyprians rule, or by S. Augustines answer to the Donatists, often objecting Cyprian in defence of their own rebaptization, viz. that Cyprian erring in that point, with so much, and so constant charity and humility, was to be preferr'd before Steven maintaining the truth with so much pride, and uncharitableness; And thus we also know in the quartodeciman Controversie, though the truth was on Victors side, (as I have no obligation now to yeild it on the Romanists) yet was he justly reprehended by Ireneus for his pride in cutting off from Communion the Asian Bishops for the contrary error.
What he adds in the last place, about begging the question, is soon answered, that I count it not a begging of the question in the Romanist to call us schismaticks when we deny and offer to prove the contrary, but their bare calling us so, without any offer of proof for it, or the supposing it sufficiently proved, and taking it for granted, and from thence building conclusions upon it, as on a principle, when it is not proved with any Solidity, and when at that very time, when 'tis taken for granted, it is known to be the principal, if not only question, as in this present controversy, whether we are schismaticks or no, it is most manifest.
As for his good words which, before he leaves this first part of judging others, he must needs bestow upon my arguing, that it equally favours the perfectest schismaticks that can be imagined] it appears before this what truth there is in them; If S. Cyprian and such as he be the perfectest schismaticks imaginable, then he hath aimed something right, but otherwise he hath not, for he hath been the measure, by which alone I have directed my arguing in this matter.