View of Some Exceptions Made by a Romanist, Part 2 · Subpart 33
Ch. 15. Anſw. to the Chap. 15.
Section 1 To the three next Paragraphs, 23, 24, 25. you profeſſe it needleſſe for you to give any anſwer, and doe it ſo willingly, becauſe, as you ſay, the diſcourſes are intricate, i. e. ſuch as you cannot eaſily accommodate anſwer to; but eſpecially, becauſe it is ſufficient for private men to learne the common doctrine of the preſent Church, and therefore there will lye no obligation on me to reply any thing, ſave onelyonly this, that his Lordſhips arguments doe ſtill prove ſufficient to the end, to which he deſigned them, to ſhew that Tradition is no infallible guide, which that you acknowledge, your diverſion ſeemes to intimate, and your many proofes, that 'tis not needfull it ſhould be.
Section 2 But then it is in you a great injuſtice, not to take notice of his Lordſhips deſigne, to which his arguments are concluding, (but to impoſe another on him, to which he never thought himſelfe engaged, nor could have foreſeene your pleaſure without the ſpirit of divination) and yet, to chide him for impertinence, and pretermit and deſpiſe all that he hath ſaid upon this onelyonly ground of diſpleaſure, becauſe he hath not proved what you now thinke fit to ſet him for his taske.
Section 3 This onelyonly you muſt pleaſe to note, that the appointing the ignorant to learne their beliefe from the common doctrine of the Church (as before you did from the Catechiſmes) doth intimate your opinion, that your preſent Church is infallible, but is no ſhew of proofe that it is ſo (and ſo Petitio principii) nay if your words ſignifie, as they ſound [that your doctrine thus taught is credible and perſwaſive enough] I may conclude that your Church is not infallible; for whatever is taught by ſuch an one, is more then credible and perſwaſible.
Section 4 Your ſubtilty about the way of knowing the River Thames will as little come home to the buſineſſe of Infallibility (though to Credibility it may) unleſſe every Water-man on the River be as infallible as your Church, for of him it is that I learne it; and though his credit be great enough for a matter of this moment, and in it I would as willingly be ignorant or uncertaine, as be at the trouble to ſeeke out a better ſecurity: In matters of greater moment, I may be excuſed if I am not ſo credulous, if I chooſe not to believe them, whoſe intereſts are concerned, at leaſt if I thinke every Catechiſme on the ſtall to be ſomewhat leſſe then infallible.
Section 5 Having now ſufficiently diſclaimed Tradition (at leaſt ſhewne your opinion of it, that you have little need of it to ſuſtaine your Churches infallibility) and ſo granted as much as his Lordſhip attempts to prove, yet for ſome former profeſſion of kindneſſe to it, you will now take its part a little (rather then his Lordſhip ſhall be permitted to ſay any thing true) and vindicate it from the argument about the Chiliaſts. In which I muſt tell you, that what you here affirme of his Lordſhip and M. Chillingworth is not true of his Lordſhip (whether it be of M. Chillingworth is not tanti, as that not having the booke by me, I ſhould take the pains to examine it.)
Section 6 As Firſt, this, that he ſeekes to father on Saint Juſtin, that all orthodoxall beleivers of his time received the doctrine of the Chiliaſts, whereas all that his Lordſhip ſaith, is but the repeating of Juſtin's owne words (wherein he cannot be deceived in your opinion, for you before recite the ſame) and tranſlating them (wherein he is not deceived, for he doth it ad literam) and in a word affirming, that Juſtin ſaith he holds it, and ſo doe all that are in all parts orthodoxe Chriſtians, which phraſe [all that are (i. e. which he ſaith are) in all parts orthodox] that it differs from this other of yours [all orthodoxall beleivers] I ſhall appeale to no other judgement then that of your owne conſcience, who in the former page affirme, that Juſtin ſpake of three ſorts of men; Firſt, Thoſe that did as he conceived in all points hold aright: the ſecond, which though they did not ſo in all things, yet were foreign, of a pure and pious judgement, (and thoſe which are ſuch I ſhall ſuppoſe to be orthodoxall beleivers, though as it appears by your acknowledgment, they did not hold right in all things.) Or if your analyſing of the place doe not ſufficiently convince you of this difference, (and the injury that conſequently you have done his Lordſhip) I ſhall then, (having long agoe ſeriouſly weighed that place) Firſt, give you an account of it, ſuch as I doubt not will ſatisfie you; and when I have done ſo, Secondly, confeſſe the weakeneſſe of that place to conclude any thing againſt Catholique tradition; and yet Thirdly, make it cleare, that you have wronged his Lordſhip in your report of his citation.
Section 7 Firſt, For the doctrine of the millennium, I profeſſe to beleive, that it appears not to be Juſtin's affirmation, that it was not oppoſed by his contemporaries, but rather the contrary,P. 306. C. which I conclude from theſe words, foreign. I have ſignified to you that many doe not acknowledge this doctrine of the 1000 yeares, and thoſe many, Chriſtians that are of pure and pious opinion or judgement. And that you may be beholding to me, I ſhall alſo profeſſe, that I am not of the opinion of thoſe learned men that have conceived that period falſe written; and that either foreign ſhould be changed into foreign, (which would be a ſtrange and bold Criticiſme, of very ill example, if it were admitted againſt the conſent of copies; and then Secondly, it would leave a very perplexed period of it) or that foreign ſhould be left out; For firſt this would be as dangerous a Criticiſme, and of as ill example, which would make Authors opinions mutable into the quite contradictory; and yet ſuch, as is not without example among you, witneſſe the diſputation between the Regulars and Seculars in the controverſy about the neceſſity of having an Ordinary here in England, upon occaſion as I remember, of a Canon of a Councell concerning Confirmation, one ſide contending that [non] ſhould be in, the other that it ſhould be left out, a controverſy about a word, nay a ſyllable, but yet that of ſome concernment. Secondly, if either of theſe emendations ſhould be admitted, the antecedents and conſequents would not naturally and in good ſtile connect, but the ſenſe of this period would be juſt all one with that that went before immediately.
Section 8 A Second proofe of what I ſaid I ſhall fetch from this, that Trypho in that place (though Juſtin had told him that he denied not the Millennium, yet) ſuſpected that Juſtin had equivocated with him on this ground, becauſe other Chriſtians were not of this opinion, and therefore begins with foreign, tell me whether you confeſſe it ſincerely, foreign, &c. and Juſtin anſwers, that ſure he would not ſay it if he had not thought it, and thereupon repeats, that he had confeſt to him, foreign, and promiſes he would ſet out a Booke of this diſputation, and profeſſe it openly to others as well as him, and adds that he means not to follow men and their doctrines, but God; all which argues his acknowledgment that the opinion was not uncontradicted by men, nor generally conſented to by Chriſtians.
Section 9 A laſt proofe ſhall be,P. 307. that thoſe words which ſeeme moſt to the contrary [foreign foreign] will not come home to the proofe of it, nor indeed of any more then this, that he was of that opinion, and ſome others in all things conſenting with him; for it being ſuppoſed that he was of that opinion, it cannot be expected of him that he ſhould affirme any that hold it not (though never ſo orthodox in other things) to be foreign, of right opinion all things: becauſe every honeſt man ſuppoſing his owne opinions to be right, (for elſe he will change them) muſt alſo ſuppoſe, that they that differ from him in one of thoſe are not in that, (and ſo not in all things) of right opinions.
Section 10 For the truth is, he ſpeaks of three ſorts of men (wherein I ſhall not differ much from you) the firſt, that denyed the reſurrection and the 1000 yeares, and thoſe he calls foreign, nominall Chriſtians, Atheiſts, impious, haereticall leaders; the ſecond, thoſe that acknowledged the reſurrection and denyed the Millennium, and thoſe are contained under foreign, Chriſtians of pure and pious opinions; the third ſort, thoſe that held both, as him ſelfe, foreign,P. 306. many others, and foreign,P. 307. if there were any that were orthodox in all things.
Section 11 This being thus ſet downe (if you pleaſe) by way of compliance with you in the firſt place, I ſhall make no ſcruple to adde in the ſecond, that by Juſtin it cannot be concluded, that the 1000 yeares was a matter of Catholicke beliefe in his time, but only favour'd by him, and many others, and conſequently, though that were after condemned in the Church, would it not be from this teſtimony inferr'd, that a Catholick doctrine, (much leſſe a tradition) were condemned.
Section 12 And therefore (which was the third thing I promiſed you) you may obſerve, that his Lordſhip ſpake very cautiouſly, and (as any man will now conceive) very critically, according to the importance of Juſtins words, that Juſtin held it, and ſaid, that all that were in all parts (that is in all particular points) Orthodox Chriſtians did ſo too, but no more, which is much leſſe then what you lay to his Lordſhips charge, in the firſt place, that he fathers on Juſtin, that all Orthodoxall believers of his time received the doctrine of the Chiliaſts; And infinitely leſſe, then that which you lay to him in the ſecond part of the charge, that he fathers againe on Juſtin, that ſuch as did not receive that, doctrine were held as Sadduces or Haereticks; To which I anſwer in a word, that ſure your memory of things is confuſed, and ſo apt to betray you to write things, which are apparently falſe, for ſo this particular is, his Lordſhip not ſaying one word to this purpoſe in this paragraph.
Section 13 Which three things being thus cleared, I ſhall now proceed to view your dealing in that which his Lordſhip mentions from Irenaeus in this matter.
Section 14 Of him indeed it is true, his Lordſhip ſaith, that he ſets downe the doctrine of the Chiliaſts directly for a tradition, and relates the very words that Chriſt uſed, when he taught this. And to thoſe words of his Lordſhip's, I ſhall make bold to adde the words of Irenaeus on which they ſeeme to be grounded:P. 497. Presbyteri qui Johannem viderunt, meminerunt audiſſe ſe ab eo. & haec Papias Johannis auditor, Polycarpi contubernalis vetus homo, teſtata reliquit. The Presbyters that ſaw John, remember that they heard this of him: and Papias, Saint Johns Auditor, that dwelt with Polycarpus, P. 498.an ancient man, left theſe things teſtified. This ſurely ſounds ſomewhat towards a teſtimony of Apoſtolick Tradition, and if it be capable of an anſwer reconcileable with your doctrine of Tradition, may yet certainly be acknowledged a difficulty worth your taking notice of. And yet you that were ſo large on that of Juſtin to little purpoſe, have not vouchſafed to take notice of this of Irenaeus, but on the other ſide affirme, that Irenaeus laboured very much, and ſpent many Chapters in proving of it. From whence, I confeſſe you are willing to aſſume, that all at that time were not perſwaded of the truth of the Millenaries fancies; but as that is a ſtrange way of concluding, from his ſpending pains and Chapters to prove it, to inferre that it was not generally believed in his age (when 'tis poſſible his ſo large a proving did make all men then of that opinion, and his proving it poſitively, and not againſt any adverſary, though it doth not prove he had then no adverſary, doth much leſſe prove that he had) ſo is there not added by you any other, or indeed, any tittle of anſwer to what is brought by his Lordſhip out of Irenaeus.
Section 15 His Lordſhip ſaith alſo in this Paragraph, that they that were after againſt the Millenaries never quoted any for themſelves before Dionyſius Alexandrinus, who lived 250 yeares after Chriſt: this indeed ſounds ſomewhat toward concluding, that that was the doctrine of the firſt age not oppoſed by any prime Doctor, and might be worth your pains in anſwering too, but you endeavour not that neither, but would make it improbable, that if it were ſo generall a doctrine, Dionyſius ſhould dare to oppoſe it. This is very ill arguing againſt a matter of fact, to aske how could or durſt he? there is nothing done ſo many yeares ſince, but ſome probability may, by a witty man, be brought againſt it; I confeſſe I acknowledge my opinion, that there were in that age men otherwiſe minded (as out of Juſtin it appeared) and his Lordſhip ſaith nothing to the contrary out of any other evidences, (no more then we made it cleare he did out of Juſtin) all that he ſaith is, that Papias had gotten the Prime Doctours into the beleife of it, and that no one of thoſe two firſt ages oppoſed it, that is, wrote or interpoſed in any conſiderable manner againſt it.
Section 16 And if I were apt to change my opinion in this matter, on eaſy tearmes, I ſhould goe neare to doe it upon the view of your proofe of the contrary, ſo exceeding feeble and weake is it. For ſuppoſing all the eminent men for thoſe ages had beene for it upon the ſtrength of ſome places of Scripture, and Papias his report from Saint John, it would not yet be very difficult for a learned man, Dionyſius Alexandrinus (when no act of Councell had interpoſed or bound up that doctrine) in the degree that he thought that thoſe places of Scripture were miſunderſtood, and that Papias had abuſed them, in the ſame degree I ſay, to declare his opinion and the grounds of it, and never force or ſtraine his owne conſcience, or incurre the blame of hereſy by ſo doing.
Section 17 For what thinke you of another opinion that Irenaeus tooke up juſt upon the ſame tearmes, of Chriſts being betwixt 40 and 50 yeares old, for which he vouched Scripture,Adverſ. haer. l. 2. c. 39. as he did for tother, and the authority of omnes ſeniores (larger then Presbytery in tother) teſtantur qui in Aſia apud Johannem diſcipulum Domini convenerunt; id ipſum tradidiſſe eis Johannem &c. All the Elders witneſſe it, that were in Aſia with John, that he delivered it to them; & qui alios Apoſtolos viderunt, haec eadem ab ipſis audierunt, & teſtantur de ejuſmodi relatione, they that ſaw the other Apoſtles, heard the ſame of them, and beare witneſſe of ſuch a relation. This is as high an expreſſion of Apoſtolicall Tradition (if we will beleive Irenaeus) as univerſally teſtified to be ſo, as any could be thought to be. And yet ſure you would not thinke it a ſinne againſt Conſcience, or obnoxious to the cenſure of Hereſy for any man of meaner parts and authority then Dionyſius Alexandrinus to have oppoſed this phanſy, and profeſt his opinion to the contrary; you muſt know that there was not that perfect yoke of tyranny gone out upon all mens necks as now your infallible Church doth glory of, that no man muſt oppoſe any the meaneſt aſſertion or opinion of the Doctours of the Church, (though not at all defied) but preſently he muſt be an Hereticke; at leaſt divinity was not turn'd into ſuch an art, that it muſt receive no grouth, or ſenſible change, but all goe on in the ſame tracke, beleive (nor underſtand) no more in Scripture, then the preſent Church underſtands, and ſo in effect have all their skill in tongues and fathers, and even their judicative faculty as ſo many unprofitable burthens upon them, that muſt not be made uſe of to the diſcovery of an errour, to the helping of the world to more light, reforming any thing that is amiſſe in it.
Section 18 This which is one of the greateſt moderne crimes in Chriſtianity, was not ſo ancient as thoſe purer daies, wherein life was as cenſurable, as now falſe opinions, (I meane ſuch as though ſuppoſed falſe, are yet perfectly extrinſecall to the anology of faith) wherein foreign and foreign, impiety and piety, divided the Church into erroneous and true members, and teaching of opinions not before embraced (ſo it were not with pride, or judging of others) could be well enough endured. And ſo (according to the old rule of diſtingue tempora) doe but conſider how diſtant thoſe times are from theſe amongſt you on one ſide, and your oppoſite extreame (that runne from you ſo farre, till they meet you againe at the Antipodes) on the other, and you will give Dionyſius Alexandrinus leave to dare oppoſe that doctrine of the Chiliaſts, though it had (more generally then it did) prevailed amongſt them.
Section 19 Another argument you have againſt the generall reception of that doctrine, [that 'tis probable Saint Dionyſius the Areopagite oppoſed it] I wonder one that aſſerts an infallible Church ſhould deale ſo mightily in probabilities, juſt as if a profound Geometer ſhould uſe but Topicall arguments. Now to ſee how you prove this probability, 'Tis proved by the workes now extant bearing his name.
What workes thoſe are, and how improbable to be his, I could give you a large account by ſome hints which I remember Photius in his foreign helpt me to, but I ſhall ſatisfie my ſelfe onelyonly with anſwering your argument out of Philoponus, briefely thus. That in the places by you cited, he mentions onelyonly an Epiſtle of Dionyſius to Polycarpus, in which you know, or may know, there is no word of the Chiliaſts, and then that will be a very aliene teſtimony, and very unable to countenance the bulke of thoſe bookes under Dionyſius his name; which may all be ſpurious, (and in them the teſtimonies againſt the Chiliaſts) though that letter ſhould be canonicall; and now ſee, I pray, what your probability is come to.
Section 20 For your diſcourſe about the Quartodecimani, I will not divine how it came in here, but am ſure it hath no right to be taken notice of by me; his Lordſhip having not ſaid one word of them, nor of any friend of theirs, whoſe intereſts lye common with them; and therefore ſhall I returne no word to that part of your diſcourſe, till you ſhew how I am obliged to it.
Section 21 What his Lordſhip ſaith out of Salvian you confeſſe to be true, but ſee not what it makes againſt Tradition; If you be not modeſt in concealing your knowlekge in this matter, but really ignorant, I ſhall then tell you. His Lordſhip proves by this, that the Church that ſuffers Salvian to be a member of it while he refuſes to paſſe ſentence of condemnation upon Arrians (after they were condemned by a Councell) either differs much from your Church (that will condemne any man for an Hereticke, that ſhall profeſſe not to condemne all Proteſtants) or elſe muſt ſuppoſe and admit the plea for Salvian, that he was ſo earneſt againſt ill men, that for aggravating of their crime he leſſens that of Heretickes. And then if it may be accepted in one Fathers behalfe, that he could ſpeake hyperbolically, or paſſionately, why may it not be admitted in another, that one of thoſe, or ſome other collaterall conſideration might have influence on any ſpeech that ſhould be cited from them, and then the authority of fathers will ceaſe to be infallible.
Section 22 For this, by the way, you may pleaſe to obſerve of his Lordſhip's reaſonings about tradition and authority of fathers, (which before I gave warning of) that they are not deſigned, or fitted to the taking away all authority from them, to make them vile or meane to any, but onelyonly to reduce them in ordinem to prove them not infallible: the Topicke à teſtimonio humano, is but a Topicke ſtill, and though ſometimes being heightened with circumſtances (of which it is capable) it is a very convincing Topicke, yet is not for all this a demonſtration; and ſo there is a difficulty which may exerciſe you in ſtead of ſcoffing of his Lordſhip in the cloſe of the Chapter.