A Reply to the Catholic Gentlemans Answer, Chapter 1
CHAP. I Of the cauſe of Schiſme being left out of this debate.
Sect. I.
No cauſe able to juſtifie Schiſme. Every voluntary Diviſion a Schiſme, whatſoever the motive were. Maſter Knot's Teſtimony.
Num. 1 HIs words are theſe, But to draw neere your ſatisfaction, His firſt Chapter is, for the body of it, common to both parts, yet I cannot omit one ſtrange piece of Logick at the end of the firſt Chapter, Sect. 9. where he concludeth, that the occaſion or motive of Schiſme is not to be conſidered, but onelyonly the fact of Schiſme, Of which poſition I can ſee no connexion to any praemiſes going before, and it ſelfe is a pure contradiction, for not a Diviſion, but a cauſleſſe diviſion is a Schiſme, and how a Diviſion can be ſhewed to be unreaſonable and cauſeleſſe, without examining the occaſions and motives, I doe not underſtand, nor (with his favour) I thinke he himſelfe.
Num. 2 What want of Logick there is in that concluſion of the firſt Chapter, which extorted this animadverſion from the Romaniſt, and what ſtore of that faculty (ſomewhat neceſſary to the managing of a controverſie) we are to expect from him, will ſoon be diſcernible by the view of that place which is accuſed by him, where having praemiſed the criminouſneſſe and weight of Schiſme, and unexcuſableneſſe of all, that, upon what provocation ſoever, breake the unity of the Church, I conclude that he that ſhall really be guilty of it, and the fact, wherein that guilt conſiſts, proved againſt him will no way be able to defend himſelfe by pleading the cauſe or motive to his Schiſme, there being no ſuch cauſe imaginable, which can juſtifie this fact of his, as both out of Irenaeus and Saint Auguſtine had been newly vouched. Upon which, my reſolution there, was (as to me ſeemed) but neceſſary, to divolve the Whole debate into this one quaere, whether we of the Church of England were de facto, guilty of this crime, were Schiſmaticks or no, concluding that if we were, there were nothing to be ſaid in excuſe of us.
Num. 3 From this view of the foreign, the rational importance of that Section, 1. It is evident (what the Romaniſt profeſſeth not to be able to ſee) what is the connexion of my poſition to the praemiſes foregoing, viz. this, no cauſe can excuſe the Schiſmatick, therefore the examination of the cauſe is unneceſſary, whatſoever can be pretended on that head, is not worth the producing or heeding in this matter.
Num. 4 2. 'Tis as evident how farre the poſition it ſelfe is removed from being a contradiction, which yet the Romaniſts Logick hath pronounced to be a pure one. A pure contradiction is in our Logick, eſt and non eſt, It is a Schiſme, and It is not a Schiſme, It is cauſleſſe, and it is not cauſleſſe, and the like. But certainly my concluding that no cauſe can juſtifie a Schiſme, or if the Schiſme be proved, tis in vain to plead that we had cauſe for it, containes no ſuch contradictory enuntiations. He that ſhould ſay that a Seditious perſon or a Rebell, is worthy of death whatſoever cauſe it were that incited him to that villanie, doth neither affirme the Rebell to be no Rebell, nor the cauſe he pretends, to be no cauſe, onelyonly he ſaith indeed, that whatſoever the cauſe be, 'tis incompetent to juſtifie ſo foule a fact.
Num. 5 3. The proofe, which he addes to conclude this poſition to be a pure contradiction, is very farre from proving it. The proof is this, for, ſaith he, not a diviſion, but a cauſeleſſe diviſion is a Schiſme. But this hath been ſhewed to have no truth in it, becauſe Diviſion and Schiſme being exactly the ſame, one a Latine, the other a Greek word, every Diviſion is and muſt neceſſarily be, in him who is guilty of it, a Schiſme, and if a voluntary Diviſion, a criminous Schiſme, whatſoever were the motive or cauſe of it, by Diviſion or Schiſme underſtanding (as I declare my ſelfe to doe) a spontaneous receding, or dividing from the unity of the Church, not being cut off or driven from it.
Num. 6 Laſtly, what he addes as a conſectary of his proof, that [he doth not underſtand how a Diviſion can be ſhewed unreaſonable and cauſeleſſe, without examining the occaſions and motives] he may now, if he pleaſe, without much difficulty comprehend, viz. by conſidering, that no cauſe or reaſon, how weighty ſoever, is ſufficient to juſtifie a diviſion. For as long as this is either proved or granted, the concluſion will be indubitable, without examining of the motives, that the Diviſion is unreaſonable and cauſeleſſe. Let it once be granted or proved by the known Lawes of a Nation, that every act of Sedition is a tranſgreſſion of Law, criminous and puniſhable, whatſoever the motive be that incited it, and then there will need no more than conviction of the fact, to conclude that fact unreaſonable. That which is in it ſelfe ſo culpable and inexcuſable, that no reaſon whatſoever can be able to juſtifie it, is ready for the ſentence of condemnation, without farther proceſſe; when 'tis reaſonably reſolved, that no reaſon can excuſe ſuch a fact, what reaſon can there be to loſe time in examining reaſons? This is the very caſe in hand, as 'tis apparent to any that will but view the place, and 'tis not much for my incouragement in this taske, that the Gentleman, to whom I muſt reply, was willing to think this ſo deep a riddle, ſo much above common underſtandings.
Num. 7 I ſhall here only adde, that what was thus ſaid, was not in reaſon to provoke the Romaniſt, being a conceſſion that cut me off from many viſible advantages, and ſo deſerved his reward, much better than rebuke, and being thus early and unexpectedly fallen under his ſhort diſpleaſure, by my indeavour to oblige him, I have yet a ſhield, which promiſeth me ſecurity from the continuance of it, I meane not the evidence of the truth affirmed by me, (for that is not an amulet alwaies to be depended on, when it is againſt intereſt to acknowledge it) but the ſuffrage of his owne great Champion Maſter Knot, who hath directly affirm'd what I affirmed (and therefore I may be allowed not to underſtand, how this ſhould be ſo unintelligible) citing it out of Saint Auguſtine, That there is no juſt neceſſity to divide unity, And that it is not poſſible that any man have juſt cauſe to ſeparate—Infideli unmasked, cap. 7. num. 5. And ſo it is as manifeſt that this part of the firſt Chapter is common to both, as the former of which he affirmes it, the concluſion in all reaſon being involved in the ſame condition which belonged to the Praemiſes, and it was onelyonly my ill luck, or his willingneſſe to finde fault, that it was not formerly apprehended to be ſo.