Answer to a Popish Pamphlet, Assertion – Example 6
Papiſts.
LOuing and reloued friend, I hauehave recei…edA your courteous letter, wherein you greatly wonder, that I wondered ſo much in our laſt diſcourſe, that any man in England, endu…d with a good iudgement, conioyned with a religious conſcience, could either accept or affect the Proteſtants new coyned Goſpell. You requeſt me to ſetB downe briefly ſuch reaſons as induced me therevnto; the which ſuite I could not denie; for both religion and affection vrged me to ſatisfie ſo iuſt a deſire. For I muſt confeſſe I louelove you as a man, and as an honeſt ciuill Gentleman, and moſt gladly▪ I would hauehave occaſion to louelove you as a Catholick Gentleman: for it is great pitty, that ſuch a multitude of deteſſable errours, and hainous hereſies, ſhould lodge in ſo rarely qualified a ſoule.
I hauehave penned them after an vnaccuſtomed maner, followingC the faſhion of Schooles in moſt of them, after a ſyllogiſticallWhy not in all? methode: to the intent that if you ſhould ſhew them to your Miniſters which ſwarme about you, they might not hauehave ſuch free ſcope, and libertie to range abroad with their idle diſcourſes (as they vſe to take) vailing their confuſed conceipts with a multitude of affected phraſes, thereby more eaſilie to deceiue the ſimple, and to loath the learned.
Wherefore I beſeech you, if any ſuch itching ſpirit, ſhallD attempt an anſwer, to intreat him to performe it briefly, orderly, and ſeriouſly. This I requeſt, for that I perceiue, that Proteſtants cannot anſwer with breuitie; becauſe their religion lacketh both certaintie, and perſpicuitie: & extreame hard, or impoſſible it is, to replie without prolixitie, where there is no truth, nor veritie.
And therefore I requeſt you, as you louelove me, to will them to conſider well, before they anſwer ill; and not to replie with raſhneſſe, leaſt they retreate with deliberation, to their vtter ſhame and confuſion. And that you may perceiue, how my wonder rather deſerued approbation, then admiration, and for that order is a fauorite of memory: I thought good to reduce all my reaſons vntounto two heads. Witte, and Wi…l, Knowledge and affection, faith and good life; becauſe the nature of hereſie hath euer beene ſuch, as did not onelyonly inueagle the witte with errors but alſo ſeduce the will, with occaſions of inordinate affections: I ſay then, that no excellent good witte, lincked with a religious conſcience, can either accept, or affect the Proteſtants new coined Goſpell, for good witts, and iudgements, aſſiſted with Gods grace, may eaſily perceiue the truth: yea, by the force of their very naturall faculties, they may iudge credibly of the trueth once propoſed, and without great difficultie, diſcerne the abſurditie of an vntrue religion: vertuous and well inclined affections, which are the baſes of quiet, ſecure, and religious conſciences, abhorre, and deteſt ſuch principles, as either diſhonour God, abaſe mans nature are occaſiō of ſinne, fauour iniquitie▪ or in any ſort diminiſh deuotion, or pietie. And therefore all theſe inſequent articles ſhall ſtand vponupon theſe two foundations, to wit that the Proteſtants religion debarreth the witte from right vnderſtanding the true faith, and the will from following of any vertue or godlineſſe.
Proteſtant.
THe occaſion of his writing▪ as he profeſſeth, is the ſatiſfying of a friends requeſt, for the ſauing of his owne credit: how he hath acquitted himſelfe herein, let all that will, firſt read, and then iudge.
The Proteſtants allow no Goſpell, but one only, which is no newer then the promiſe of God in the old Teſtament:Gen. 3. 15. & 12. 3. Gal. 3. 8. Act. 11. 26. Neither do they challenge to themſelues the name of Proteſtants, but of Chriſtians. The fitteſt title for Heretiks is Antichristians, which notwithſtanding they forbeare, on the Papiſts behalfe, becauſe they would not offend thoſe, that are weake amongſt them, Papiſts indeed they call them, becauſe of their dependance on the Pope. The name of Catholickes, being vniuſtly challenged, they iuſtly deny: both becauſe in the Creed the church of Chriſt hath that title, of which the popiſh church is not ſo much as a …ound member: And alſo becauſe the Donatiſts hereſie reſtraining the church to their congregation in Affrica, gaue occaſion to the church of Chriſt, to tearme themſelues▪ by the name of Catholike, or vniuerſall, in oppoſition to the Heretikes conceite.
As for the name of Proteſtants, it was giuen vponupon occaſionSleydan▪ lib. 6. of Proteſtation, made by the Duke of Saxony, and other Princes and Cities of Germany againſt a certaine decree at Spires publiſhed by the Emperour Charles the 5. and is not a title affected by them, or any way ariſing from their doctrine; yet do they not diſclaime it as Antichriſtian, or vnlawfull, becauſe it is not ſo in it ſelfe, nor likely to breede any errour, or offence in the church of God.
The maner of his penning is vnaccuſtomed but yet ſuch, as that reuerend, and learned Diuine Doctor Fulke, a good while ſince required of all Papiſts▪ and ſuch in deed, as is moſt fitt, for handling all controuerſies.
But it ſhould ſeeme, this writer is not much acquainted with this courſe; his Syllogiſmes are ſo looſely tyed, and his concluſions ſo farre from the queſtion, but for the better vnderſtanding of this courſe, giuegive me leaue, as briefely as I can, to teach the reader the vſe, and nature of a Syllogiſme. All axiomes, or ſentences deliuered for true, are either acknowledged to bee ſo, denied, or elſe doubted of. If there be doubt made of the trueth, it is called a queſtion, therefore ſome reaſon muſt be brought for the cleering, and proning of it: wherevpon triall is to be made whether this proofe be ſufficient or no, which is by a ſyllogiſme. Now a ſyllogiſme is a ioyning together of diuers Axiomes, wherein the queſtion is ſo diſpoſed with the Argument, that it is neceſſarily concluded vponupon the Antecedent, ſo that if both the former Axiomes be true, the concluſion is true alſo. If either of them b… falſe, the queſtion reſteth as yet vnproued: The parts of a ſyllogiſme are two; the Antecedent, and the Conſequent; the Antecedent is the former part, that diſpoſeth the queſtion, and the Argument together; and it hath two parts, the Propoſition or Maior, wherein the whole queſtion, or at leaſt the latter part of it, is diſpoſed with the Argument, the Aſſumption, or M…or, which is aſſumed, or taken out of the Propoſition. The conſequent, or concluſion is the latter part, which comprehends the parts of the queſtion, and concludeth it; A ſyllogiſme is ſimple or compound. Simple, where the latter part of the queſtion is diſpoſed in the propoſition, the former part in the Aſſumption. A ſimple ſyllogiſme is either contract, or explicate. A contract ſyllogiſme (ſo called becauſe it is ſeldome, or neuer, found with the parts diſtinctlie ſet downe) is when the Argument by way of example, is ſo ioyned to a particular queſtion, that it is the former part of the Antecedent, the Aſſumption being affirmatiue. As ſome confidence is a vertue, as Conſtancie; ſome confidence is not a vertue, as Audaciouſneſſe; the queſtion is whether ſome confidence be a vertue or no. Firſt it is proued that ſome confidence is a vertue: The whole ſyllogiſme ſtands thus.
Conſtancie is a vertue.
Conſtancie is confidence: therefore
Some confidence is a vertue.
Secondly it is proued, that ſome confidence is not a vertue.
Audaciouſneſſe is not a vertue.
Audaciouſneſſe is confidence: therefore
Some confidence is not a vertue.
In theſe ſyllogiſmes the queſtions are particular, ſome confidence: and the Argument, by way of example, in the former, is Conſtancie; in the latter, Audaciouſneſſe. Conſtancie in the one, and Audaciouſnes in the other, are made the former parts of the Antecedent; the Aſſumption in each is affirmatiue.
In an explicate ſyllogiſme the propoſition is generall, or proper, and the concluſion like the Aſſumption, or weaker That part which is negatiue.part. There are two kinds of it: the former, where the argument is alwaies the latter part of each Axiome, one of them being negatiue.
Example.
The doctrine of Iuſtification by workes doth not take away boaſting,
But the true▪ doctrine of Iuſtification doth take away boaſting: therefore:
The doctrine of iuſtification by workes is not the true doctrine Rom. 3. 27. 28.of iuſtification.
Here the matter to be proued is, that the doctrine of Iuſtification by workes, is not the true doctrine of Iuſtification. The Argument to proue it is, It takes not away boaſting. The Argument is in the latter part of the propoſition, and Aſſumption and the Propoſition is negatiue. Therefore the ſyllogiſme is truely form'd according to this former kinde.
The Latter, when the Argument is the former part of the Propoſition, and the latter part of the Aſſumption being affirmatiue.
Example.
Whoſoeuer buildes his faith vponupon his priuat and ſingular expoſition Art. 2. part. 1.of ſcripture, is an Infidell. But all Proteſtants in England build their faith vponupon their owne priuate, and ſingular expoſition of ſcripture. Therfore all Proteſtants in England are Infidels.
The point is, that all the Proteſtants in England are Infidels. The argument to proue it, They build their faith vponupon their owne priuat, and ſingular expoſition of ſcripture. The ſyllogiſme is of the ſecond kind, becauſe the Argument is ſet in the former part of the propoſition, and in the latter part of the aſſumption, which is alſo affirmatiue.
A Compound Syllogiſme is a Syllogiſme, wherein the whole queſtion is one part of the Propoſition being affirmatiue, and compound, and the argument the other part. To gaineſay, in a compound Syllogiſme, is to make a ſpeciall contradiction.
A compound Syllogiſme is either Connexine, or Diſiunctiue.
A Connexiue Syllogiſme is when the Propoſition is Connexiue: and it is of two kindes; whereof the former aſſumes the former part of the queſtion, and denies the latter.
Example.
If Dauid loſt his faith, then faith once had, may▪ be loſt.Art. 6. par. 2. in my anſwere.
But Dauid loſt his faith.
Therefore faith once had, may be loſt.
It is affirmed that faith once had▪ may be loſt; the proofe is, Dauid loſt his faith, the Syllogiſme is of the former kinde, becauſe the propoſition is Connexiue, or Condicionall, the former part thereof auouched in the aſ…umption, and the latter concluded in the conſequent, or concluſion.
The latter gaine-ſayes the latter part of the queſtion, that it may gaine-ſay the former.
Example.
If the Proteſtants hauehave any faith, the world was without faith Art. 1. par. 1.1500. yeares.
But the world was not without faith 1500. yeares.
Therefore the Proteſtants, hauehave no faith.
This Papiſt affirmes that the Proteſtants hauehave no faith: to proue it he brings this argument, that the world was not without faith 1500. yeares. The Syllogiſme is of the later kind; becauſe the latter part of the propoſition is gaineſaid in the aſſumption, and the former in the concluſion.
A Diſiunctiue Syllogiſme is, when the Propoſition is Diſiunctiue, whereof alſo there are two kinds. The former gainſayes one, and concludes the reſt.
Example.
All Proteſtants build their faith vponupon their owne priuate expoſition Art 2. par. 1.of the ſcripture, or vponupon the Churches expoſition.
But they build not vponupon the Churches expoſition.
Therefore they build vponupon their owne priuate expoſition.
The point is, that the Proteſtants build their faith vponupon their owne priuate expoſition of ſcripture, the proofe is, that they build it not vponupon the Churches expoſition. The Syllogiſme is of the former kinde; becauſe in the propoſition the one part is ſeuered from the other, the one whereof is gaineſaid in the aſſumption, and the other, affirmed in the concluſion.
The Latter, when all parts of the Propoſition being affirmatiue, one is aſſumed, and the reſt gaineſaid.
It is hard to finde examples of this latter kinde, but I will frame one thus.
Example.
The Pope builds his faith either vponupon his owne ſingular expoſition, or vponupon the Churches.
But he doth build vponupon his owne expoſition.
Therefore not vponupon the Churches.
To proue that the Pope builds not his faith vponupon the Churches expoſition, I alledge this argument, he builds vponupon his owne. My Syllogiſme is of the ſecond kinde▪ becauſe the propoſition being wholy affirmatiue, aſſumes the one, and gaineſayes the other. It was very neceſſary that I ſhould deliuer the Rules of a Syllogiſme, becauſe without them my courſe of anſwering cannot be throughly vnderſtood. If they ſeeme hard to any man, a little paines▪ and vſe will make them eaſye, and pleaſant.
His requeſt of breuity I hauehave ſatisfied, as neere as I could. It is eaſier to tye a knot, then to vntye it, and one man hath greater dexterity, in vttering ſhortly that which he hath conceiued, then another. For my part, I had rather, any man had anſwered, that can do it with ſhortneſſe, then my ſelfe; rather my ſelfe, then no body, but I hope this Papiſt will ſtand to his owne ground, in his Preface, and ſince he holds it hard, or impoſſible to reply without prolixitie, where there is no truth, nor verity, he will acknowledge truth, where he cannot but acknowledge ſhortneſſe. His threatnings and reproches, I doe willingly, and wittingly paſſe ouer, as the heate of an angry diſputer; and withall I proteſt to him, and all men, that I hauehave anſwered (according to my ſmall skill) briefly, orderly, and ſeriouſly; not leaſt I ſhould ſeeme ignorant by ſilence, in ſaying nothing as he preſumes in the end of his letter, but as I thinke, and beleeue in my conſcience; For what am I, the meaneſt of many, and moſt vnknowne, not to the Papiſts only, but to our owne Church alſo, that I ſhould feare the ſuſpition of ignorance, by ſilence, when ſo many famous diuines ſit ſtill, and ſay nothing? If he, that hath anſwered the firſt part, had thought it worth his paines, and found leaſure to refute the ſecond, I cannot ſay I ſhould hauehave wholie ſaued my labour (for it is not vnknowne to ſome, that I had finiſhed all the 12. before his anſwere to the fiue firſt came forth) but ſure I ſhould hauehave beene eaſed of ſome paines which I hauehave taken ſince, eſpecially in writing the abridgement: and auoyded all danger of further trouble. But the Lord who hath giuen me ſtrength, and will to diſpatch this, will (I doubt not) aſſiſt me in the defence of his trueth for euer: To whoſe gracious bleſſing I commend the ſucceſſe of this, and all other my indeuours, in Ieſus Chriſt our Lord, and onelyonly Sauiour.
Amen.