View of Some Exceptions Made by a Romanist, Part 2 · Subpart 51 – Subpart 56
C. 24. Anſwer to C. 24.
Section 1 His Lordſhip ſaith that the conſent is little thank-worthy, becauſe that may be an effect of feare, when there is fire for them that diſagree. To this you anſwer, that you diſagree not in matters of faith, neither where there is fire to awe, nor where there is none.
Section 2 Sir, is not that a ſtrange anſwer in you, that know there is fire to awe diſagrees in all matters of faith, and conſequently no matter of faith, where there is no fire to awe? By this it appeares that that exception of his Lordſhips againſt your unity in matters of faith is farre from frivolous, and to get quit of it, you are faine to make a diſtribution, of which onelyonly one ſpecies belongs to the Genus, which being put into forme betraies it ſelfe preſently: It muſt be thus, of matters of faith, ſome are required of us ſub poenâ ignis, ſome are not. Can you ſtand to it, that this ſhall hold? are there any things de fide, which a Man may ſafely disbelieve? if not, all the reſt you ſay in that Section is nothing to the purpoſe. But then you adde, that all the differences are in matters not of faith, to which the anſwer will be very obvious (if I troubled you with no other) that ours are ſo too, and then you have little matter of triumph over us in that excellence.
Section 3 But if you pleaſe, I ſhall be a little more large with you in this point, and firſt I beſeech you to conſider, that it is you that bring this Argument againſt us, taken from Diſſentions amongſt us, and not we againſt you (though we might with as good reaſon) and therefore that it lies on you to prove it a concluding Argument, and to us 'tis abundantly ſufficient, if we be but able to retort it, for then 'twill be an Argument ad homines, though in it ſelfe it be no Argument.
Section 4 This being premiſed, I pray obſerve, in the ſecond place, the no force of this Argument againſt us, unleſſe it may alſo appeare that our departing from you, is the cauſe of theſe Diſſentions. For if they be but onelyonly conſequent to it accidentally, this ought not in all reaſon to be laid to our charge, any farther then thus, that this accidentall conſequent, is a probable argument of one of theſe two things, either that you have better rules for the reſtraining of ſuch Diſſentions than we, or elſe that you are more carefull in executing the rules you have; and if either of theſe be ſaid by you, I ſhall then tell you: 1. That it ſeemes this Argument concludes but probably, though the propoſition were granted, and I believe I could urge as probably on the other ſide, and conclude the excellency of our Reformation from that old ſaying of Clemens (by way of Anſwer to your Objection, both of Jewes and Heathens againſt Chriſtianity, taken from the Diſſentions of Chriſtians in the Primitive Church) foreign foreign, The cauſe of them is, becauſe all things, that are excellent, are ſubject to the envy of Men, and Devils, and from thence to the ſowing of ſeeds of Diſſentions amongſt them; agreeably to that of our Saviour, that as ſoon as the wheat was in the ground, the envious ſowed his tares.
Section 5 But then ſecondly, for the preventing of ſuch Diſſentions, I ſhall adde, that though we have not pretence of infallibility, and threats of fire to reſtraine Men from them, yet we have other rules more agreeable to antient Church practice, than either of theſe; and though the weapon of our warfare are not carnall in your ſence of foreign, to the taking away of life, yet are they if they were executed, mighty to bring downe or ſhut out Hereſies. For, if you know it not, I can tell you, that Excommunication (that ſoveraigne receipt of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, the moſt perfect deſigne of charity, to ſave and recover that which is loſt, to ſhame Men to reformation) and upon contempt of that, that ſecular rougher hand interpoſing, the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo, and the Statute of Abjuration are very ſtrong reſtraints; and if they have not been ſo diligently executed as they ought to be, though I hope you will pardon this fault, yet he that will not, muſt charge it onelyonly on the Perſons of our Magiſtrates, and not on our Religion, or the ſtate of our Reformation. And then let me adde that even theſe lawes, and this execution of them, or the like, whether among you or us can extend no farther then to outward reſtraints, and that onelyonly of thoſe that will be ſo terrified, or to puniſhment of them that will not; but not to preventing of Hereſies in the inward riſe or growth, or ſometimes in the breaking out, whenſoever ambition of being Leader of a Sect, &c. are more prevailing than feare of puniſhments, which caſes muſt be lookt for in every Church.
Section 6 To which purpoſe you may pleaſe to reflect upon your ſelves, and tell me, whether there were not good ſtore of Hereticks before the times of the Reformation, If not, I am ſure Irenaeus, & Epiphanius, and Saint Auguſtine, and Philaſtrius have abuſed us in their Catalogues; and I beſeech you, but to remember the ridiculous Hereſies of Galatia (which Saint Jerome mentions on occaſion of Gal. 3.1. in reſpect of which he conceives the Apoſtle calls them ſuch fooles, and thinks they were bewitcht) particularly thoſe of the foreign, that would have Cheeſe mixt with the Bread in the Sacrament, which with two others of the like ſtamp, there mentioned, came from Ancyra the Metropolis of Galatia. And yet I believe you would not thinke the Argument of much force, if it ſhould (from your example againſt us) be made uſe of by us either againſt thoſe Apoſtolicall Churches, or againſt the Roman Church ever ſince, that ſo many Hereſies are gone out of it; and yet that would be as reaſonable in us, as in you it is to charge all the Hereſies which have been in the World ſince Luther, upon the Reformation.
Section 7 For, let me aske you, is the fault that you object to us in this matter, that Hereticks are gone out from us? That which wee have ſaid will ſatisfie you that that is no argument, that we are not a true Church, for if it be, it will be of force againſt the Catholique Orthodox Church in all Ages. Or is it, that they that thus diſſent from us are ſuffered to continue among us? if that be it, then firſt there are alſo Diſſenters among you, continuing with you. Secondly, our Lawes and Canons are for the caſting them out, if their diſſentings be Hereticall, and that is all that you can pretend of theſe, and if we have been more indulgent than you would have us, that is but an errour of tenderneſſe firſt, and then that onelyonly the fault of Perſons.
Section 8 Having ſaid thus much (which I conceive full ground of ſatiſfaction to what you have or can ſay in this matter) I might now adde, that if you looke no farther then the Church of England even in theſe (which I ſuppoſe you will count the) worſt times of it, you cannot finde any greater or more dangerous Hereſies avowed by any conſiderable Party than are owned by ſome of the Jeſuits among you.
Section 9 I ſhall firſt mention that popular doctrine (you know what I meane) of Bellarmine, reſumed and confirmed not long before his death, with his moſt adviſed care in his Recognitions. Secondly, the doctrine and practice of reſiſting and depoſing lawfull Magiſtrates under colour of religion (that I ſet it no higher, even to killing of Kings.) Thirdly, the oppoſing the Order of Biſhops, as expreſly contrary to the ſole-power enſtated by Chriſt on S. Peter. And alſo Fourthly, the affirming it lawfull that evill may be done, ſo it be in order to a publique good; and that I trouble you with no more (and yet give you reaſon to thinke that it is in my power) I beſeech you to believe that I have read Watſon's Quodlibets, (and I could without much difficulty make a parallel betwixt theſe whom you ſo much charge, and thoſe whom you defend, your hatedſt Enemies, and your deareſt Friends, that Booke being ſo richly able to furniſh me with hints) & that I have ſurveyed the Writings betwixt the Seculars and the Regulars (with the late controverſie among you about the Biſhop of Calcedons being appointed Ordinary in this Kingdome, produced) and in them the difference about the neceſſity of Confirmation, and the [non] (even now mentioned) in the Canon of the Councell, as alſo the Symbolum Jeſuiticum, &c. and if we have any greater diviſions among us yet, than theſe, I beſeech you to let me know it from you (for I believe 'twill be no eaſie diſcovery) and I ſhall promiſe to doe and pray my utmoſt, that they may be avoided.
Section 10 This being thus ſet betwixt us, I ſhall not need to deſcend to a particular ſurvey of the truth of what you ſay, that theſe differences among you are in matters not de fide; though in that there would be a large field to amplifie in alſo.
Section 11 To his Lordſhips argument, [That the Church ought to have reſolved theſe queſtions if they deſired conformity with the antient Church] you anſwer, that neither of theſe Doctrines hinder Conformity with the Antients in any thing wherein Conformity is required; and confirme that by an implicite Aſſertion, which you will never be able to prove, viz: that the Fathers did not deliver doctrines (as well as reaſons) directly contrary to the Dominicans; Whereas 'tis cleare they did, viz: to that, that phyſicall predeterminations can conſiſt with freedome of will. Which even now you thought good (not to deny but) to excuſe by a dilemma, that if this oppoſition were not diſcovered to the Dominicans, it would doe no hurt, if it were, it would be relinquiſht. It ſeemes by this, that if they are diſcovered, and not relinquiſht, the danger would then be great, and ſo that if they knew this conformity, this conformity would be requiſite alſo, and ſo is requiſite in it ſelfe, though by the excuſe of blameleſſe ignorance it be capable of mercy.
Section 12 To the 42 Sect. you anſwer by granting againe, and thus you ſay alſo Maſter Ch. is anſwered, and truly ſo any Man will be content to be anſwered; I would all his Lordſhips Treatiſe had been ſo anſwered, it had been more eaſe to your ſelfe, and advantage to ſomebody elſe.
To the 43 Sect. Chap. 25.
We doe not formally inferre, that becauſe our rule breeds unity, therefore all diſſenting Parties ought to yeild to that; but that diſſenting Parties have no rule on which it is fit, or ſafe to rely; and againe, that in place of it, we ought to ſeeke out one which cauſes unity, becauſe no rule can be good without that quality. Nevertheleſſe it followes alſo, ours is the true rule, becauſe, de facto, none but ours either doth it, or is apt to doe it, and one ſuch rule there muſt be, we are ſure. Ours then is not therefore to be accepted, becauſe it breeds unity, but becauſe it alone doth breed it. As for Nilus, he is a pratling Greeke, and beſides that in his ſeverall ſayings he overthrowes himſelfe, and confirmes our Doctrines; in this point no heed is to be taken to what he ſaith.
Chap. 25. Anſw. to Chap. 25.
Section 1 In this Chapter you diſclaime an Aſſertion by affirming it; diſclaime it in theſe words, [That you doe not inferre, becauſe your rule breeds Ʋnity, therefore all diſſenting Parties ought to yeild to it] and affirme it in theſe [That diſſenting Parties have no rule, that they ought to ſeeke out one that cauſes unity, that yours is the true rule, and none but yours:] your meaning is, it ſeemes, that you doe inferre it, but you doe it not formally; and ſure it matters little for formality, when the thing is ſo granted by you.
Section 2 For that you put in the word [onelyonly] it matters little; becauſe any other company that ſhould deny that infallibility, and uſurp it themſelves, would ſoone get the monopoly of it alſo, eſpecially from any that differed from them in any particular. As for Nilus, 'tis farre cheaper and eaſier to call him pratling Greeke, than to confute his ſaying, which yet, if you pleaſe to marke his words in this place, is no more than you ſay in the very undertaking to anſwer this Treatiſe, that your Church muſt by all be lookt on as infallible.
To the 44, 45, 46, 47, Sections, Chap. 26.
In theſe foure Sections the Enquirer buſily endeavours to perſwade that errours might ſecretly creep into the Church by degrees, as a Child waxes bigger, and as the index of a Clock moves about. Be it ſo as the Enquirer ſaith, yet nevertheleſſe, might all ſuch creeping errours, if there were any, be eſpied, at leaſt, when they had once got in, if not while they were ſtealing thither. Thus the growth of a Child is ſeene plainly, though not the growing, and the hand, or ſhadow of a Diall is ſeene at what houre it is, though the ſlow pace thither was not perceptible; and Men may give a judgement whether it goe falſe or true. Why then could not errours be espied as eaſily after they were once ſtolne in, though by never ſo ſmall degrees, they made their approaches thither? Thus were the errours of Arius, Pelagius, Wicliffe, Socinus, and others, preſently diſcovered, notwithſtanding all their Authours counterfeiting and ſlie manner of divulging them; even as tares, which were ſown while Men ſlept: as ſoon as grown up were ſeen and noted. What then ſhould hinder all other pretended errours of the Church from being ſeen and regiſtred, although crept in never ſo inſenſibly?
What matter is it that ſundry Bookes are loſt? Are they more loſt for thoſe errours, then for others? or were theſe more inviſible then all the reſt? It is ſtrange with what improbable conjectures this Enquirer deludes himſelfe.
He tells us afterwards of another ſlie way of breaking in, that is to ſay, under old names and titles, altering the ſignification, but not the words. But I would know how the errours of the Church could by this art be concealed, more than the errours of Calvin, who ſought with old appellations to palliate his new Doctrines.
But, in concluſion, his principall device is, that if no precedent oppoſition were a note of the being taught from the beginning, that then the doctrine of the Chiliaſts would paſſe for right and Apoſtolicall, becauſe, as he affirmeth, it was not contradicted till two hundred yeares after the coming in. But my anſwer is, it is more than any Man can prove, that it was contradicted no ſooner: nay, it is more than probable, that it was contradicted in the time of S. Juſtin, as we have ſhewed before, and alſo highly probable, that it was oppoſed and rejected in the time of Dionyſius the Arcopagite, as alſo hath been noted before.
Beſides, it is no way neceſſary that every caſuall or innocent opinion ſhould be forthwith contradicted, or noted as an errour againſt faith; and of this ſort was the errour of the Chiliaſts during the time it was held but as an opinion, without cenſuring or condemning others, to which height, aſſoone as it arrived, it was cryed downe preſently and rejected.
The 48 Sect. containes but a recapitulation of what was before propounded, and therefore requires no new anſwer to it.
The laſt Sect. containes nothing that deſerves not commendation, or is unworthy of the Author, but is rather to be extolled and imitated by all that make Enquiries after truth, and his reſolves there be ſuch, that if they be truly and ſincerily put in execution by any, no man can have reaſon to be offended with him in this world, nor is it likely that God will be diſpleaſed with him in the next. But whether the Enquirer was not very unhappy in his ſearches after truth, or no, I leave it by the ſearcher of all hearts to be determined.
C. 26. Anſw. to C. 26.
Section 1 To your anſwer to the undiſcernableneſſe of errours, that though they are not ſeene at the time, they may be ſeene after. I reply, that I confeſſe it poſſible they may be ſeene after, and that ſome are ſo, very ſoone after, but yet ſure not all preſently after, at leaſt not publiquely and vulgarly ſeene; As they are ſeene, ſo they may be made knowne to the world, ſome a long time after others; and this is ſufficient to ſhew, that the Authours of the errours may poſſibly not be ſeene & diſcovered at all, though the errour in proceſſe of time chance to be ſo, which will be moſt evidently true, if it be farther conſidered (what his Lordſhip affirmed) that errours came in by degrees, and not at once.
Section 2 To your queſtion what it matters that ſundry bookes are loſt? I anſwer, that thus much it matters, that from thence it followes infallibly, that 'tis poſſible there might be oppoſition againſt any doctrine, though in the writings we have, there be none mentioned, and as you diſprove not that, ſo his Lordſhip deſires not to have more acknowledged.
Section 3 Your next anſwer by retortion againſt Calvin will be of no force, unleſſe Calvin undertooke to be infallible.
Section 4 For the matter about the Chiliaſts as you referre to your anſwer before, ſo doe I to my reply, onelyonly from your favour or indulgence to that opinion, during the time that it was held but as an opinion, without cenſuring or condemning others; but then withdrawing that favour when it arrived to that height; I am very glad and joyfull to joine iſſue with you, and charitably to ſuppoſe (though I affirme it not) that till you tooke upon you to condemne and cenſure others, any opinion you held, meerely as an opinion, might doe you no irreparable hurt; but now that you proceed to that inſolent unmercifull height, what mercy can you expect from your owne principles, by which yet we that cenſure not, condemne not, are confident to hope for ſome kindneſſe from you, though not from other men.
Section 5 To the 48 Sect. I ſhall take your example likewiſe, and to the laſt commend your ingenuity for commending that, that deſerved it ſo much; and onelyonly demand with what conſcience you could thinke him very unhappy in thoſe ſearches, which you confeſſe to be ſo happy in propoſing; for ſure if unhappineſſe ſignifie the ill ſucceſſe of his ſearches, there can be (according to your Principles) no feare that they ſhould by God be permitted to be unhappy; or if it ſignifie any fault in them, you cannot without uncharitableneſſe, and judging of hearts pronounce him guilty of it.
The Concluſion.
The generall reſult of all that which hath beene debated hitherto betwixt the Enquirer and me, is, in effect, no other but that, Firſt, the Catholique Churches infallibility is a ſoveraigne preſervative againſt errour; and againſt all diſſention or diſ-union in believing, unto all thoſe who doe acknowledge it, and yeild ſubmiſſion thereunto. Secondly, that each new verity defin'd by that Church is to them a new path to heaven, though on the other ſide, to all ſuch other as refuſe to be directed by her, it may prove juſt as the Enquirer is pleaſed to expreſſe himſelfe, a new path to walke in towards the Devill, or one ſteppe more unto damnation. And in this he was in the right, and ſpoke truer then he was aware. Now it is well knowne that all we Catholiques are guided by that ſame infallibility; and againe, that on the contrary all Anti-Catholiques doe reſiſt it, and what will follow out of this, is no hard matter to collect. Moreover, this ſame infallibility, a quality ſo unpleaſing to the Enquirer, cannot, as he ſurmiſes, make us ſure, if we be in errour, never to mend, for we all doe offer freely that if either he, or any of his ſide be ſure to disprove ſoundly and clearly the infallibility, we will be as ſure to mend and forthwith to relinquiſh it; by which expected act of theirs we ſhall be reduced unto ſuch good tearmes, in which all Anti-Catholiques continually are, that is to ſay, to believe at randome, reele wildly up and downe unconſtantly, and fall at variance amongst our ſelves, as they doe; and then I hope the Enquirer will be contented with us.
But the want on their behalfe of ſuch an efficacious proofe as this, hath beene the true reaſon why we have not hitherto thought of any alteration, or comming towards them. Certainly it is much better to be perſwaded though falſly, of an infallibility, then to be ſure to have none, as you now are, but to be wrangling perpetually, falling out and fighting amongst your ſelves; whereas, before you were, when as our Religion prevailed, this inconvenience happened not. So that, in fine, all the goodly fruits you have reaped from your impugning Church and Councels, and in bringing in inſtead thereof a new invention of your owne, is but the making of your ſelves and your Country miſerable, which daily, by deare experience we finde. And ſo much for the Enquirer's unadviſed impugnation of the infallibility of the Catholique Church.