View of Some Exceptions Made by a Romanist, Part 2 · Subpart 50
To the 40 Section Chap. 24.
We Catholiques doe not diſagree in points of faith, neither where there is fire to keepe us in awe, nor where there is none, and therefore this exception againſt our unity is frivolous. It is the cleareneſſe and perfection of our rule that drawes us all to unity, and not any of the foure Elements. If we follow this rule we are at peace, and we doe well know how to follow it: contrarywiſe, follow your rule as well as you can, and yet you are at variance; wherefore you aſſigne a rule, which though it in it ſelfe be not uncertaine, yet which is as bad, you are uncertaine of it. Now as in Logicke a maxime, or axiome, if unknowne, or uncertaine, is no good principle of argumentation; ſo in matter of beliefe, a rule not certainly diſcernible and underſtood, is no good rule of faith, though never ſo perfect in it ſelfe: and this is juſt your caſe.
The differences amongst thoſe of our Church are not differences in matters of faith or religion, as it is evident; but on the other ſide it is manifeſt and confeſſed, that yours are. Our differences are in Philoſophy onelyonly, or in ſome Scholaſtique and undefined point, and ſuch in particular is, that now ſome yeares agitated betweene the Dominicans, and ſundry of their party on the one ſide, and the Jeſuits, and Sorbon Doctours, and many more, on the other. For theſe contend not as we doe, with the Calviniſts, namely, whether we have free will or no: all of them agreeing in that verity of faith, but they contend about a queſtion onelyonly Philoſophicall, which hath ſome relation to it, namely whether with this freedome of will acknowledged by both ſides, Phyſicall predeterminations or praemotions can conſiſt: which queſtion is no queſtion of faith. Now admitting as many thinke, that theſe predeterminations could not ſtand with the doctrine of free will, yet the ſaid doctrine of faith is not hurt thereby: for the oppoſition betweene them and free will, is either diſcovered by the Dominicans, or not. If not, then is it dormant, and ſo, though never ſo ill, it cannot doe hurt to faith, or worke it any prejudice. If it be diſcovered, then it can worke nothing, foraſmuch as thereupon it will be relinquiſht and abandon'd preſently: becauſe the doctrine of free will is received by an aſſent of faith, and the other but by a philoſophicall or opinative; the former being the ſtronger, muſt needs command and expell the latter, aſſoone as they begin to fall at variance. Wherefore it would in that caſe be a good conſequence with them, viz. Man hath free will, therefore there is no predetermination and not contrarywiſe, (as it is with the Calviniſts) there is predetermination, therefore no free will. Therefore in the holding of predeterminations there is a vaſt difference betweene a Calviniſt and a Dominican, even as much as betweene an obedient Catholique, and a perverſe and obſtinate Heretique, and that is difference enough. And ſince you would needs know, this is the reaſon why theſe arguments make you Heretiques, and not the Dominicans. That the Church ought to have reſolved the point in difference, betweene thoſe two orders, is more then the inquirer can prove, for neither of their doctrines doe hinder conformity with the ancients in any one thing, wherein conformity was requiſite; for men are not bound to conforme with the ancients in the reaſons of their beliefe, but in their belief onelyonly. The 42. Section we grant as making nothing againſt our doctrine. And thus Chillingworth is alſo anſwered who inſiſts upon this ſame point, and alſo in the ſame faſhion with this Inquirer, ſo that all things conſidered, both theſe make but one Author and require but one anſwer to what they have objected. And by this the 41, and 42. Sections be alſo anſwered.