View of Some Exceptions Made by a Romanist, Part 3
HEre it ſeemes was once an end of thoſe annotations, and it had been for the readers eaſe and mine, that you had continued in that minde. But upon better thoughts, either that which had beene here noted, was thought not quite ſufficient, or elſe, ex abundanti, this ſuperfoetation is beſtowed on us. The cloſing ſheet which I mentioned in the Preface, and promiſed to annex alſo. Which here in juſtice to the Apologiſt, I ſhall give you, though I conceive I had beene as kind to him, if I had forgotten it.
Section 1 THis ſmall treatiſe Apologeticall is no finiſht worke, but only a firſt draught or inchoation, and was ventured abroad to explore the judgements or cenſures of one or two intelligent Adverſaries, that ſo the Author by his ſecond thoughts might be the better able to understand what was to be altered in it, what added, and what taken away, either as ſuperfluous or offenſive, and till that act was done, and withall an approbation and licence given by thoſe to whom it belonged, neither the worke, nor any line of it is to be acknowledged, or vouched by the Author.
Section 2 The drift is not to prove the Church which we call Catholique, and the Enquirer cals Roman, to be infallible, but to defend it against the Enquirers arguments; for he Sect. 28. undertakes to give reaſons why the Church of Rome is fallible. So that our drift is to make it good that this ſame Church may ſtill be infallible, notwithſtanding any thing that he hath ſaid unto the contrary.
Section 3 The pillars that ſupport all his diſcourſe be 1. Sect. videl. that with us both Reaſon, Scripture, and Antiquity, be fallible; his proofe of this aſſertion is a ſuppoſed maxime of ours, namely, that nothing is infallible but the Church. The aſſertion is firſt denyed, and afterward the proofe, and against theſe denialls no reply can be made, becauſe we know beſt our owne inward acts and judgements, and no man is able to tell us what we thinke, but we muſt tell them.
Section 4 Theſe three pillars of fallibility being broken and relinquiſht as deſperate, you are pleaſed to come with new ones in their places.
Section 5 Reaſon, ſay you, cannot prove the infallibility of your Church, becauſe it is not an evident verity; Scripture cannot; becauſe not certainly expounded to that probation; Fathers doe not, becauſe it was not a doctrine held in their time.
Section 6 It ſeems then, that the cauſe why none of theſe three can prove our Churches infallibility, is not any want of infallibility in them, as the Enquirer contended it was, but ſome other different; ſuch, namely, as you here aſſigne; and ſo the Enquirers argument is at an end, even at the very beginning of it, and my taske is done, yet, in my reſpects, to you, I will goe on farther.
Section 7 To your firſt, I anſwer, that though reaſon cannot it ſelfe alone prove our Churches infallibility, yet, as you acutely note, Sest. 3. reaſon can aſſure us, by ſhewing us ſome words of prophecie, or revelation from God, with ſufficient evidence that it is a revelation, and thus reaſon can prove a verity be it never ſo inevident. After this manner it is that we ſay reaſon proves our Church, against which proof the inevidence of it, as we ſee, can be no impediment.
Section 8 To your ſecond, I anſwer, by denying that ſcripture hath not beene ſo certainly expounded to that purpoſe, for we ſay it hath been ſhewed by our authors at large, as for example, by Bellarmine, Valentia, Petavius, Veron and others.
Section 9 To your 3. I anſwer, firſt, that 1. Irenaeus, 2. Auguſtinus, 3. Lactantius, 1. L. 5. c. 20. l. 3. c. 4.2. L. 2. adverſ. Creſcon. c. 33. item ep. 118. item l. de unitate Eccleſ. c. 22.3. l. 4. c. 30.4. L. 12.and 4 Facundus Hermanenſis doe abſolutely teach the Church to be infallible. Secondly, I deny that the Fathers teach not the Romane Church to be the true Church and contrary to your tenet, I affirme that they hold that Church to be the true Chriſtian Church, as the forenamed authors have declared out of them, as alſo Card. Perone and Co…ffeteau have ex…ellently ſhewed. Alſo I my ſelfe have endeavoured it elſewhere out of the ſeverall Teſtimonies of Antiquity not to be in this place repeated.
Section 10 The buſineſſe touching the motives of Faith which I, with Irenaeus, called Oſtenſions, their place, uſe and efficacity needs only explanation, and ought to be admitted by every Chriſtian, and therefore, begging your patience, I will tarry longer upon it.
Section 11 We doe not goe about to prove our Church to be the true, therefore becauſe ſhe holdeth with the truth, but becauſe we conceive we have good ſolid reaſons to perſwade us that ſhe hath the truth. Theſe reaſons have been often rendred by our Authors, to whom if the Inquirer had replyed, we alſo had endeavoured to defend them. Concordance with the Scriptures and fathers we doe marſhall amongst them, not in the firſt place indeed in order of Doctrine but yet in the firſt in order of dignity. Neither doe we aime to prove our Church by the gallantry of Demonſtration, or any other way then Chriſtianity, ſooner or later, is to be perſwaded unto Infidels; for we are now dealing, not about a parcell, but the whole frame of Chriſtianity, from the top to the foundation, and the laying of the firſt ſtone; which firſt ſtone we hold to be thoſe actes of God which Pſal. 104.27. are called verba ſignotum, and fitly may be tearmed ſigna realia, that is to ſay, ſings and oſtenſions, which be the acts of Gods omnipotence and ſoveraigne Government, and, by a morall certainty and rationall way are ſhewed for humane institution and inſtruction. This ſort of ſignes is, by order of nature, to have the precedence before all artificiall ſignes, or vocall expreſſions of the divine will, and therefore as Raymund Sebund obſerveth, liber factorum is to be peruſed before liber dictorum; By theſe ſignes, as, by the apparentiae, or foreign, in Aſtronomy, we are to get the firſt notions of theſe celeſtiall revolutions, or reſolutions of faith; and though theſe be ſure, yet are they not demonſtrative, becauſe no way intrinſecall, neither to the revelations which they aſſure, nor to the objects revealed, which are aſſured by the revelations, as being no cauſes, nor effects of either, nor ſignes inherent of thoſe objects.
Section 12 Seeing then, the true Catholique Religion is but the true Chriſtianity, they both of them are to be learned by the ſame Apparences, or Oſtenſions, more or leſſe expreſly underſtood. Now, while we draw nearer unto theſe ſignes, and learne them more and more expreſly, amongst other things we may diſcover as good characteriſmes and ſignatures of revealed truth, the Concordance of our Faith with holy Writ and venerable Antiquity, which two ſignes, without the preceding could have little force to perſwade beliefe. For, ſay I were to convert an Indian, I would not ſeeke to doe it by telling him firſt of all of theſe two Concordances mentioned, which 'tis like would move him but a little, for, though I could ſhew him the Bible was antient and Godly, and the Fathers wiſe, yet this would not be enough to perſwade him, and therefore I ſhould hold it fit, Firſt to repreſent unto him, ſome other motives, as namely, Propheticall predictions authorized by event, miracles and miraculous operations and effects, creditably recorded from age to age, both in the Evangeliſts and other ſequent Hiſtories, of whoſe faith a man rationally cannot doubt, at leaſt in the ſumme of them, or the chiefe bulke. I ſpeake not here of fabulous Narrations, or ſuſpected Histories,Et eſt pleniſſima haec oſtenſio unam & eandem vivificatricem fidem, &c. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. but Authours of credit and eſteeme; Secondly, the excellency of our Faith it ſelfe, and manner of propagation of it. Thirdly, the perfection of life and heroicke actions of ſuch as doe profeſſe it, and all this after a manner not interrupted, but continued from age to age, and conveyed downe to us by the prime Eccleſiaſticall ſucceſſion, not of perſons onelyonly, but of Paſtours in the chiefe ſeate, and other inferiour, prized ſo highly by Irenaeus, and held a moſt ſure note of truth, and a way to confound all that doe gainſay it. Laſtly, a conſonance with Reaſon, Scripture, and Antiquity. Theſe and ſuch like be our foreign, theſe our Oſtenſions; theſe be the received notices and ſignatures of revealed truth; by theſe God invites us and induces us to believe; and by theſe, engages his owne veracity to warrant the act of our aſſent, it being repugnant to the high perfection of his truth, to lay upon man a rationall obligation, and then deſert him, and to permit that the publique acts of his providence ſhould be a ſnare, not a direction, not an introduction to truth, but a ſeduction from it. Though therefore theſe motives make our faith but credible in an eminent and a high degree, yet the veracity of God is at hand to ſupply, ſeale and confirme all, and with the authority thereof, to make the aſſurance abſolute. This method of reſolving and reducing faith,Iren. l. 3. c. 4. Auguſtin, ad Honoratum Manichaeum. was ſignified by Irenaeus, when as he ſaid, Poſt tot Oſtenſiones factas non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios veritatem quam facile eſt ab Eccleſia ſumere. This way deſigned by Saint Auguſtin, this is conformable to the Analytique principles delivered by Ariſtotle in his Organon; this the beaten path of all Divines, and no new invention or exotique ſtuffe.
This method we are ready to maintaine as ſtrong and ſolid, not permitting the believer to ſit downe with a ſlender Socinian certainty liable to deceit, not encloſing him in any maze, circle, or ſemicircle, not enforcing him into endleſſe and weariſome regreſſes, neither producing evidence, nor deſtroying liberty, but by theſe motives fortified with the divine veracity, leading him aſſuredly to the Church, and by the Church to the entire and determinate Canon of holy Scripture; and ſo at length by both theſe joyned together, to the full diſcovery and distinct knowledge of the doctrines of our faith, after the manner following.
Section 13 Theſe motives or oſtenſions being once conſidered, we are forthwith to obſerve to what body of Christian profeſſours they belong, and in what line of ſucceſſion of Eccleſiaſticall Magiſtrates they deſcend unto us, and in the paſſages of antiquity, diligently to note which ſhip it is which in the Chriſtian fleet was counted the Praetorian, or Admirall, with which all the reſt were to joyne company, and by the ſeparation from which, we are to judge which veſſels be fugitive, or pyraticall, and which not; which aſſembly of Chriſtians legitimate and approved, and by this aſſociation to be diſtinguiſhed from the broken and diſperſed troopes of Anti-Catholiques, and by the ſame the army of the living God in the Church militant, diſcerned from the ſtragling companies of divided and diſagreeing Sectaries, how numerous ſoever they may ſeeme, when ſummed up all into one inconſiſtent body, or confuſed rout. This way and method we hold, which if it doe not ſatisfie any, let them ſet us downe a better, and not leave us without any; but let them take heed, that while with the Enquirer, we receive and admit the fallibility of the Church of Rome, or of any other determinate Church, and of one denomination we fall not, with Maſter Chillingworth, to the fallibility of the Chriſtian faith, and ſo preſently to Infidelity. It is eaſie to impugne the Organon of faith, or Doctrinall principles, but not eaſie to compoſe it, eaſie to pull downe, but not to build. The Enquirers judgement uttered to me, was, that Baron, when he writ againſt us, was luſty and ſtrong, but when he ſpake any thing for himſelfe, he was weake and languiſhing; and I believe this is the Enquirers owne caſe, and that he was able to ſay more against an infallibility then for it. In the one he hath ſhewed his ſtrength, in the other not.
Section 14 Now a word or two about lawes, and I have done. In which point I obſerve it as an uncontroverted doctrine, that unjuſt lawes, properply ſpeaking, are not lawes; firſt becauſe Lex is the dictamen rectae rationis practicae in eo qui poteſtatem habet; but an unjuſt law, is neither dictamen rectae rationis practicae, nor poteſtatem habentis, for no man is preſcribed to doe wrong by reaſon, nor hath God the chiefe Legiſlatour given power to make them. Durandus concurres in terminis in Opuſculo de legibus, ſaying, Injuſta leges magis ſunt violentiae quam leges, nam ſecundum quod dicit Auguſtinus, l. de libero arbitrio, Lex eſſe non videtur quae juſta non fuerit. Et tales non obligant quantum ad Deum. So Durandus. To him Suarius ſubſcribeth, l. 3. de legib. c. 19. n. 11. Lex injuſta non eſt lex, praeſertim quando ex parte materiae eſt injuſta, quia rem iniquam praecipit; tum enim ad acceptandum eam non obligat, verum etiam, neque ſi ſit acceptata, And preſently after, giving a reaſon hereof, he addeth, Quia excedit poteſtatem legiſlatoris.
Secondly, ſo much veneration is due to lawes, though never ſo unjuſt, that they are nevertheleſſe in conſcience to be obeyed, unleſſe they ſhould be publiquely and knownely found contrary to a greater authority then that was by which they were enacted; that is to ſay, to the law of God, or Nature, Therefore they are not to be judged or cenſured by any private man.
Thirdly, being diſcovered to be unjuſt, they derogate nothing at all from the authority of the reſt, no more then the unjuſt lawes of ſome Emperours did from the body of the law Imperiall. For though all of them were made by the ſame Authors, yet not by the ſame authority; becauſe for the making of one ſort, there was good authority derived from God; but, for the making of the other, there was none at all, but ſuch as could not make it.
Fourthly, in caſe of ſuch lawes, no man is to take armes, or make reſiſtance, but contrariwiſe, to ſuffer with humble patience, remitting the righting of his cauſe onelyonly to God, per quem Reges regnant & legum conditores juſta decernunt. And thus, Sir, I reſt your humble ſervant.
Section 15 The holy Scripture hath a threefold influence into faith. 1. Diſpoſitive, as one of the motives, or inducements. 2. Negative, as a property, ſine qua non. 3. Poſitive, as a foundation or principle. The 1. as an ancient and godly booke. The 2. as a rule, without concordance to which faith could not be acknowledged; for every doctrine muſt be conſonant to its rule, whether that rule be true, or falſe, certaine, or uncertaine. The 3. as a ſetled principle, and a booke knowne to be Canonicall.
TO all this I ſhall anſwer as briefly as I can.
Firſt, to the 1 Sect. That for the matter of fact which concernes this treatiſe, I have already averred thoſe truths, that will not permit any reaſonable man to believe that this was ſo indeed, [a firſt draught, &c.] for it was confeſt by him, Chap. 1. to be a ſecond draught. Secondly, it was not ſent out onelyonly to explore, &c. for it was, *In Concluſ.ſaith he, delivered but to two adverſaries, and to one of them (as I ſaid before) it was delivered as unanſwerable. Thirdly, if there were any ſuch deſigne of exploring and mending, &c. I muſt conceive that that work is now done; for when it was ſent home to me againe with theſe notes, many places which I had charged, were altered or taken away, and for additions, ſure ſuch were the marginall notes, and this appendage. Fourthly, For the licenſe I can ſay nothing, (but that I conceive it might as eaſily be gotten, as to what you have already made publique, if you had a minde to it) nor indeed force you to acknowledge or vouch any line of this booke, but onelyonly tell you, that thoſe words in your firſt Chapter of complaint, [That there was no notice given of licenſe for it be publiſhed, and have the advantage to be diſperſed abroad in many copies] and that [for want of the Printers helpe it ſhall lie concealed, and in much reſtraint, yea and be in danger to periſh] ſeemed to me to ſignifie your willingneſſe then to make it publique; and if you have ſince retracted that deſigne, I hope ſo weake an anſwer, as ſome of your friends boaſt this to be, did not diſcourage you. I ſhall rather thinke it was modeſty, or elſe deſigne, that you choſe rather to have diſclaimed, then commended your owne, and thought it would appear more glorious for you to have it extorted from you, or (if it ſhould prove leſſe ſplendid) yet more tolerable, to have beene raviſht from you then proſtituted.
To the ſecond Sect. I anſwer, that you had ſaid that before in annot. to the concl. A. And the anſwer there belongs to this Sect. and if you had made good what you ſay was your drift, you ſhould be pronounced conquerour.
To the third Sect. You have taken a good courſe to defend infallibility, by ſetting up for it your ſelfe, and affirming that no reply can be made to you in that matter, becauſe it depends onelyonly upon your judgement, which none can know but whom you tell it; But, good Sir, your Authors do tell us, that there is nothing infallible but the Church, and when they have done ſo, we may know your outward acts, for ſuch are your writings, though your inward we pretend not to pry into.
To Sect. 4. I anſwer, that one argument of his Lordſhips, taken from your affirmed fallibility of Reaſon, Scripture, and Antiquity, is moſt prodigiouſly by you call'd three pillars. And how Sampſon-like you have broken them downe, the Reader muſt judge; if you are ſo confident, I have here expreſt my ſelfe your ſervant, by helping you to a publique tryall.
To Sect. 5. I acknowledge that from your owne confeſſion I make thoſe three arguments, that neither Reaſon, Scripture, nor Antiquity, can infallibly prove your Church to be infallible. And
To the Sect. 6. I ſay that the want of infallibility in thoſe three mentioned Sect. 6. and by you confeſt, is ſufficient to prove his Lordſhips concluſion that they cannot infallibly prove your infallibility, and this is the ſame that was meant by his Lordſhip, though more explicated by me, and brought home againſt you by way of retortion, and Argument ad hominem, upon your own confeſſion. And ſo your foreign was ſung much too early, and you muſt to your taske again, if you will make an end of it.
To Sect. 7. I anſwer, that if you had ſhewed the revelation, on which reaſon inferres your infallibility, your ſection had ſtood good, but the totall want of that is your maine impediment.
To Sect. 8. Be you alſo pleaſed to produce your conſent of Antiquity certainly expounding Scripture to inferre your infallibility; and that ſhall be yielded you alſo, but I conceive thoſe writers of yours have not done it, and whenſoever you pleaſe, I ſhall be ready to examine their teſtimonies with you.
To Sect. 9. I anſwer. That we have allowed a ſence, wherein the Church univerſall may be ſtiled infallible, and that to ſave my ſelfe the paines of examining your teſtimonies (though ſome without examining I know to be ill cited) I ſhall grant it in that ſence to be ſo; But then to your ſecond propoſition, (be it either [I deny that they teach not] or [I affirme that it holds] it matters little) that the Roman Church is the true Church, I anſw. That if there be emphaſis in the particle [the] in the praedicate, ſo that it ſignifie the [Catholick] Church in the former propoſition, 'tis then abſolutely falſe, that the Fathers ſay any ſuch thing. And you are prudent to cite none to that ridiculous purpoſe. But if you meane, that the Roman Church is a true Church, (ſo you doe not meane that all it ſaith is true) as we grant that, ſo we challenge you to prove, that ever the ancient Church thought any ſuch particular Church of one denomination to be infallible, When you pleaſe to produce your teſtimonies, you ſhall receive anſwer to them.
To Sect. 10. Concerning the motives of Faith, You might have ſpared that paines, it being not at all concluded by you here or before, that that infallibility is built on the ſame grounds with Chriſtanity.
To Sect. 11. If you had never ſuch ſolid reaſons to perſwade you; that your Church had the truth (as I ſhould not need to deny, were it not for your denying the cup to the Laity againſt Scripture, and your keeping the Scripture in an unknowne tongue, and ſome other ſuch defects in faciendis, but rather charge you that you have more then the truth, viz. many errours mixt with the truth) this would prove but a very weake probation, that your Church is [the true Church] in the excluſive notion, i. e. that no other is the Church, but that: for having the truth, doth not ſignifie a Monopoly, or incloſure of it, or that no body elſe can have it; And if by [the true Church] you meane no more, but a true part, you know we doe not queſtion it, nor affirme that your errors though many, have turn'd you in non Eccleſiam, into a no Church. As for your Concordance with the Fathers which you ſay you have, I anſwere, that in thoſe things wherein you and we conſent, we ſhall not be unwilling to grant it to you (but yet muſt remember you, that you would not allow that to be a proofe of your being infallible) but in thoſe other which we call errors in you, we challenge you to produce an univerſall Concordance. You goe on; that you proue your Church by no other way then Chriſtianity is perſwaded unto Infidels. I hope your meaning is, that you prove your Church to be a true Church, and that ſhall be granted you without your proofe: but that it is the only true one, or the infallible one, I hope you have not miracles for that, (if you have, you have trifled away a great deale of time in not telling us of them) nor revelation from Heaven, nor univerſall tradition to aſſure you, (what you affirme ſo confidently) that the Infallibility of your Church is the whole frame of Chriſtianity. And therefore what you learnedly adde about the verba ſignorum, or ſigna realia, ſignes and oſtenſions, &c. by which you go about to prove Chriſtianity, I muſt profeſſe to edifie me but little in point of the infallibility of your Church, becauſe that is ſo diſtant a thing from it.
To Sect. 12. Your affirmation, that the true Catholique Religion is the true Chriſtianity, (if that be the onelyonly thing you aime at) ſhall be willingly granted you, all the queſtion will be, whether all your doctrines, that of denying the cup to the Laity &c. be that Catholique Religion. And ſure to him that queſtions that, all the characteriſmes, &c. all your Propheticall predidictions will give but little ſatisfaction, and no more will the excellency of Faith, perfection of heroick actions of profeſſors, nor the conveyance from age to age, by the Prime Eccleſiaſticall ſucceſſion of Pastors in the Sea of Rome, becauſe that of the ſub unicâ ſpecie, &c. which we quarrell at in you, might as well be pretended to have teſtimonies out of the preſent Articles of our Church, as out of theſe. If there be any of theſe evidences, or moreover of Reaſon, Scripture, Antiquity, on your ſide for ſuch controverted particulars, I beſeech you let them be produced, or elſe you may be Chriſtians, but yet corrupt in theſe particulars, your being a true Church will not pronounce you infallible, your Church of Rome Primitive may have the truth, and your Moderne Rome be filled with errors. And therefore you may ſpare the paines of proving (what we have no occaſion at this time to deny) that God engages his veracity to make good thoſe things, for which he gives us ſuch rationall meanes of proofe to induce our aſſent, For what ever elſe is, your infallibility, or your other errours, for which we charge you, are none of theſe things. And if you mark it, that which (according to your diſcourſe) gives us ſuch aſſurance of the truth of Chriſtianity, is the oſtenſions, miracles, publick acts of Gods providence, not the Infallibility naturally inherent either in your Church, or in any particular ſociety of men, nor the promiſe of God that any ſuch ſociety ſhall be infallible, and viſible to all that it is that infallible. As for that which you covertly caſt into the heape of the motives of Faith, [that 'twas continued from age to age in the ſucceſſion of Paſtors in the chiefe ſeat] that is no more a ground of the truth of Chriſtanity, then its ſucceſſion in all other ſeats, as I conceive you have your ſelfe let fall alſo. The truth is the Preaching the Goſpel over all the world, and the reception in ſo great a part of it, is an argument of the truth of Chriſtianity (among many others) becauſe it is the fulfilling of a Prophecy of their ſounds going out into all Lands, But this is farre from concluding the peculiar priviledge of infallibility of thoſe, who are under the Roman ſubjection. By which 'tis cleare, that what you cite out of Irenaeus, and Saint Aug. comes home no better to your point of infallibility, then Ariſtotles Analytick principles, which in the ſame place (and elſewhere) you cite alſo. And therefore if all you ſay in that long Section were yeelded, (concerning the motives to Chriſtianity, and your way by bringing to the Church, &c.) yet would you be as farre to ſeek as ever, concerning your pretended infallibility.
To your 13. Sect. which is neerer indeed to your purpoſe, I anſwere, that being by your meanes brought to Chriſtianity, there is no need that I ſhould find out any particular body of profeſſors (or Church of one denomination) to which thoſe motives to Chriſtianity ſhould ſo belong, as to belong to no othey but that; This ſure I may better ſay without proofe, then you have affirmed the contrary, For doe you thinke it reaſonable, that Chriſtianity being planted all the world over, each man that is converted to it, muſt finde out the Roman Biſhop, and thoſe that are in ſubjection to him, or not be accounted a Chriſtian? If he be borne at Jeruſalem, or converted there, will it not ſerve his turne to communicate with that Church, which hath given him Baptiſme? Was there any thing in his Creed could ſend him thither, till the holy Catholick Roman Church was (by mockery I conceive) put in thither? As for the line of ſucceſſion of Eccleſiaſticall Magiſtrates, you muſt know, that is to be found in other Chriſtian Churches, as well as in Rome, and the Scriptures and Apoſtolicall verities deſcend downe to us in them alſo. And what if in ſome paſſages of Antiquity the Sea of Rome ſhould be found to be the Praetorian or Admirall, in your ſtile, i. e. the prime or principall Sea, would this prove her infallible, the Praetorian may ſpring a leake, as well as any other, and in caſe it ſhould, I doe not conceive, that all other Ships of that fleet, were bound to doe ſo too, or elſe be counted fugitive, becauſe they are unwilling to run that unhappy fate of ſinne, or errour with her. Sure if the Praetorian ſhould caſually, or wilfully ſplit upon a Rock, you would not cenſure all others for Pyraticall, that did not ſo too. The reaſons are viſible, why that Sea of Rome had the Primacy at ſome time (and at other times other Seas put in their plea for it, and if they obtained not, yet was that an argument that it was never judged a matter of Faith, becauſe the Pretenders were not condemned for Haereticks, even when it went not with them) viz: from the Imperiall Seat being placed in that City, with which the Eccleſiaſticall foreign, or foreign, might proportionably goe along, juſt as your Praetorian is that ſhip, where the Admirall reſides, or which peculiarly belongs to him. But what is that to infallibility? That honour which comes by ſympathy with the Civill State, is not like to be ſuch a charme, or amulet, ſo to elevate above humane condition, that it muſt preſently ſet up for perfection. Let your Church have all its due and cuſtomary reſpects, but doe not ſo linke inerrableneſſe with Principality, unleſſe you can bring ſome ground from Scripture, for the union, and becauſe in all your Apology, Annotations, and Appendage you doe not ſo much as name any ſuch, I ſhall conceive you are too wiſe to claime by [Tu es Petrus] or any other ſo unconcluding an argument. Believe me, your preſcription for ſome kinde of Principality from the poſſeſſion of it continued to that Sea ſo many yeares, is a better plea than any other, and againſt that I am not now a diſputing, but onelyonly adde that greatneſſe ſaecular is no marke of infallibility. As for your rule of judging by the Aſſociation with Rome, which Aſſembly of Chriſtians is legitimate, which not, that that is an infallible way of judging is not at all proved by your magnificent ſimile. For firſt, the fleet may be broken aſunder by ſome tempeſt, and ſo without any fault of any ſhip, be divided from the Praetorian. 2. The Praetorian may quarrell with all, or any of the reſt, and by threats or bullets drive them from her, and then if the cauſe be not juſt, if it be for example upon no other crime, but that the other ſhips judge it neceſſary to caſt out ſome veſſels or trumpery which they are reſolved to be either uſeleſſe, or perhaps dangerous to the veſſell and all the Paſſengers, or againe becauſe the reſt of the ſhips are reſolved to obey the commiſſion that ſent out the whole Fleet, when the Praetorian was reſolved to diſobey it, in this and the like caſes, 'tis cleare, that the Praetorian is the onelyonly Schiſmatick; Or if it be juſt, yet the ſhips though confeſt guilty of that other crime, or crimes, which made that ſeverity of the Praetorian juſt, will yet not be guilty of a new crime of ſeparation: the reaſon is cleare, becauſe ſhe is forced to that, driven away, and now ever ſince lies under it unwillingly, 'tis her infelicity, not her crime; her puniſhment, not her fault. Or if there be a fault in that, viz: That ſhe doth not humbly confeſſe the fault, and deſire to be reconciled, yet ſure it will not be infinitely true, that that is a fault, when either ſhe was guilty before of no fault, but a pretended one, for which that puniſhment was inflicted (to which purpoſe the Chancellour of Paris will adviſe you) or when the condition of her being received againe is ſuch, as cannot with any honeſty be entertained, be it the undertaking any Treaſonable act againſt the King, whoſe Admirall he is, which denominates that Praetorian, and who is ſupreame Maſter of the whole fl…et, or be it, but ſwearing any thing to be true which is falſe, or ſubſcribing to the belief, or practice of what we believe neither true nor practicable. And that this is the ſtate of our Church in its ſeparation from yours, I ſhall undertake to make good, whenſoever you will yeild the point of Infallibility, or exchange it for the queſtion of Schiſme. You ſee I am not much edified by your way, and becauſe you are not ſo importunate, that I ſhould, but are modeſtly content that if I am not ſatisfied with it, I ſhould ſet you downe a better, I ſhall humbly crave leave to doe it in very few words. The farre better way, more Chriſtian, becauſe more humble and more charitable, (and beyond all, probably the moſt peacefull too) Is, to make the Scripture, as 'tis interpreted by the antient Fathers, the ground of our belief for all the ſubſtantiall, i. e. plaine parts of Faith; to define as few of this nature, as the Primitive Chriſtians may be diſcerned to have done, to command and require obedience, and aſſent to theſe from all our Inferiours under our authority, and to proceed to Eccleſiaſticall admonitions, in caſe of errour, to cenſures, in caſe of contumacy, but to blood, never purely for Religion, nor too often for Religion in ordine ad temporalia; To tolerate with meekneſſe, thoſe that are contrary minded, in all things that are not either of the number of theſe few, very few neceſſariò credenda, or that have not a neceſſary connexion and immediate influence on practice, and good life; This as it is farre from either pretending to infallibility, or letting looſe the reines to licentiouſneſſe, ſo is it the happieſt, moſt laſting, durable temper of a Church, moſt agreeable to all thoſe ends that Chriſt hath made moſt eſtimable to us in his Gospel, and ſo will be farre from that feare of yours, of betraying us to a deſerting of the Chriſtian faith ▪ or falling to Infidelity; univerſall peace and charity and humility, being above all things moſt contrary to that. And ſo you ſee, 'tis not ſo unpracticable a difficulty to compoſe an Organon of Faith ſo farre, as to preſerve it among Chriſtians; And for the planting it among Infidels, that is not hujus conſiderationis, nor doe I much believe I ſhall have much reaſon to differ from any learned Romanist on that Subject, on condition he would agree with me in this. As for your judgement upon his Lordſhip, that he was able to ſay more againſt an infallibility then for it, and that in the one he hath ſhewed his ſtrength, in the other not, I eaſily believe, and muſt thinke my ſelfe bound to confeſſe, becauſe I have ſeen a Booke of his againſt Infallibility, but never any for it. If this muſt be thought a fault in him, I muſt be content to lie under your ſevereſt cenſure for the ſame crime alſo, and ſic habes confitentes reos, patiently expecting what you will pronounce againſt us.
Sect. 14. You are reſolved it ſeemes to have a word or two about Lawes, upon what temptation, or provocation from the precedent diſcourſes, at leaſt from the maine buſineſſe in hand, I cannot readily ſatisfie my Reader. The moſt I can gueſſe is, that in our meeting we fell into ſome diſcourſe and difference about the nature of unjust Lawes, whether they might be ſaid to be Lawes, or no. And perchance your charity led you now out of your rode to informe me in this matter; if 'twere onelyonly ſo, I muſt acknowledge it an obligation, and ſhall thanke you for that, though I chance to diſſent from you.
And that matter I perceive will be ſoone ſtated: Thus: That Lawes, if (conſidered in reſpect of the matter of them) they be found to command me to doe ought, which by any ſuperiour law, 'tis unlawfull for me to doe, they are then unjuſt Lawes, be the Legiſlatour never ſo lawfully my Magiſtrate; and in this caſe 'tis true, that God hath not given him power to make them; meaning thereby ſuch a power, that he may make them without being unjuſt; but yet another power he hath given him, to wit, ſuch an one, as that, if he exerciſe it thus againſt God the Doners will, yet it ſhall not be lawfull for any man, or ſociety of men on earth, to call him to account, and puniſh him, to reſiſt violently, or reduce him in ordinem; OnelyOnly God that hath given him poteſtatem in genere (which is libera ad utroſque actus, power to make good or evill lawes, but withall reſtrained by a command from the law of nature, and God, and limited by that law onelyonly to the lawfull exerciſe of it, or making the good lawes) is to receive an account of the Talent given him to trade with as his Steward, and to enquire whet…er he hath uſed it well or no. Thus much, unleſſe I am miſtaken, your diſcourſe gives me reaſon to thinke granted by you. And from thence I muſt conclude, that any ſuch abuſe of power in the Law-giver, though it be in him aberration from the rule in reſpect of God, yet ſtill is an act that hath ſome effect on the man which is borne, or lives under that law, though not to oblige him to doe what is commanded him, yet to oblige him to non-reſiſtance, and ſuffering patiently, if the Law-giver be ſo wicked to tyrannize over him. Which obligation to paſſive, though not active Obedience, is the reſult of a Law, if not properly ſo called in your notion of it, yet very lawfully and intelligibly ſo called, as I have interpreted it; And for the propriety or impropriety of the word, I ſhall not much contend with you, ſo the ſubſtance be agreed on; and yet 'twere eaſie enough to repay you with the quotations of Schoole-men and Caſuiſts, which make no ſcruple to uſe the word in my ſence, and to anſwer the places you have produced, and ſhew that 'twas onelyonly in that ſence which we yeild that they did deny it. But enough of this.
For your 15 Section. What it ſignifies, or whether it would, I cannot I confeſſe divine; 'twas I conceive in you an exceſſive act of liberality, that you thought might be for my turne; and, though I know not how at this time I ſhall reap profit by it, yet I cannot but accept your good intentions. And ſo being extreamly weary of a very thankleſſe taske, I bid you heartily farewell.
FINIS.
End of the text · Henry Hammond, View of Some Exceptions Made by a Romanist (1650)