Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist, Chapter 1 · Section 3
SECT. III.
Patterns of bitternesse from St. Jerome. (An essay of Dispatch) St. Jeromes dislike of it. Vigilantius's despising of Reliques, Our accord with St. Jerome in that doctrine, Our dissent from Vigilentius. Jerom's handling of Helvidius. His noting him, that he took Ratling for Eloquence. S. W. his begging the questions. My counterfeited mistake of the Author of Rushworths Dialogues, vindicated. Mr. Whites treating of Mr. Daillee, and others. The Bishop of Chalcedon's judgement of it. The honour of being opposed by Mr. Wh. His singular way of managing Controversies. His Apology for Tradition. Some observations on it. His interpretations of some passages in the Greek Testament, and in Johannes Thessalonicensis.
1. HIS third Section is taken up, all but the last leaf, in fetching patterns of bitternesse from St. Hierome, to which he willingly appeals, and pretending I have chosen him for my Patron (afterwards, for my Ʋmpire) in this point, Let us stand, saith he, to his award and example, and see how he treated Vigilantius, Dr. H's and the Protestants forefather in denying veneration to h ly Reliques.] But let us first see, how I have chosen St Hierome for my Patron or Ʋmpire, which is all the appearance of reason produced by him, why I should stand to his award or exampl… in this point. After the Apostles denuntiations against contumely, I mention'd many other unhappy characters, all ready to fall upon this manner of treaty, one from the words of our Saviour, Mat. 5. a second from the example of Michael, Jude 9. a third from its unreconcileablenesse to the Spirit of meeknesse, commanded by St. Paul, 2 Tim. 2.23. 1 Cor. 4.21. Gal. 6.1. in opposition to biting one another, &c. characters of the Gnostick heresie at that time, and a last in these words, that as this is a most unskilfull deviation from all rules of art, as well as civility, and St. Hierom, notes it as a great error in Helvidius, that he took railing for eloquence, so it is not imaginable how so much learning and abilities, as this Disarmer is believed to have, should admit so great a mixture of rudenesse and scurrility, had it not appeared necessary to assist in the counterpoise to supply some other defects—Now what hath this Disputant to return to all this? Why, of the three former particulars he takes not so much notice, as to offer any the least answer, in the compasse of no lesse than 26 pages, which are all spent on this matter, nor of the fourth, save only in catching hold of the name of St. Hierome (incidentally mention'd) who therefore is presently noised for my chosen Patron, and the whole umpirage referred not to the passage in him, to which alone I referred, but to his practice, and that especially in his Epistles against Vigilantius, which I did not so much as referre to, or mention.
2. First then we have here an Essay of Dispatch, to passe over all that had the weight layd on it, and strike in with some one incidental passage, and by that inch of ground get over presently into another Region, and there triumph over his adversary, in a new Scene of Pageantry. This mindes me of Trypho and the Jewes dealing with Justine Martyr, P. 287, D.foreign, saith he, foreign, they endeavour not to understand what is said to them, only they whet themselves to say something. And had not St. Hierome's name (which I might well enough have spared) casually fallen into that fourth branch of the character of contumely, 'tis hard to divine where S. W. would have found a Grindstone to have whet his style, or given any more edge to this part of the fourth, than he had to the rest, and to all the three former branches.
3. S…condly, here is a rule, by which I shall not fear to lose much, if it may be allow'd of, that whosoever names an Author, and reflects on some one passage in him, is obliged to stand to his award; and then S. W. having named St. Paul, and cited as much from him, as I did from St. Hierome, must sit down with St. Pauls award; and then contumelies must be exterminated from Christian disputes, and be no longer own'd any part of his duty. 2. If S. W's refutation of St. Hieroms words by his contrary practice, be of force, then though he that cites any Authors words to his purpose, must not expect to gain any thing by them (he hath told us*P. 17. before, that all the testimonies of my book are subject to a thousand difficulties) yet if that Author have done any thing contrary to his words, he that cited him must then stand to his award and example; and thus not only Christs speech of the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, must be inverted, though they sit in Moses chair, and say but do not, yet we must do after their works, not rule our selves by their commands, but even good mens frailties or crimes must become our patterns, and have more force with us, than their calmest advises, or severest resolutions, and so St. Peters vow of never-forsaking Christ must not deserve heeding by us, but be much preponderated by the Ʋmpirage of his actions, the example of his denying him. 3. The short is, St. Hierome in the coole of the day, knew what was amisse in another, and justly noted it, and if he were sometimes provoked to exceed the bounds, that his calmer and dispassionate reason prescribed, and exacted from others, it were more reverence to the Reliques of that holy man (of which S.W. pretends such care in this Section) to bury those practises, than to transcribe them, or reproach him by appealing to them; 'Tis evident, from his words to†l. 1. c. 7. Ruffinus [Cornutam bestiam petis, et nisi caverem illud Apostoli, maledici regnum Dei non possidebunt, &c. (the very Text of which I minded S. W. and is the matter of our present debate whether I did it seasonably or no) jam nunc sentires, &c.] that he observed this asperity of his own temper, and thought himself bound by that Apostles denunciation, to restrain it, and accordingly he gives him that reason of saying no more, then he did, [Sentisne quid taceam? quod aestuanti pectori verba non commodem, & cum Psalmista loquar, Psal. 141.3.] that he consider'd that vengeance belonged to God, which concluded him conscientiously obliged not to take it into his own hands. On which ground he tells him, l. III. c. XI. of railing accusations, that non chartae Ecclesiasticae, sed libelli judicum debent continere, they become not the writings of Church-controversies.
4. Lastly, here is a compendious way (and that is dispatch still) of making D. H. and all Protestants, hereticks, and fit to be reviled, because forsooth Vigilantius for denying veneration to holy Reliques, was thus treated.] But to this I answer, more explicitly, 1. That we Protestants are as far from Vigilantius's heresie, if St. Hierome understood it aright, in his Epistle to Riparius, as St. Hierome himself was*Tom. 11. Ep. 53.. St. Hierome sets it down as part of Vigilantius's charge, that those who did suspicere reliquias martyrum, he called Cinerarios & idololatras qui mortuorum hominum ossa venerentur. Against which charge that Father professes, Nos non dico martyrum reliquias, sed ne solem quidem & lunam, non angelos, non archangelos, non cherubim, non seraphim, & omne nomen quod nominatur in seculo presenti & futuro colimus & adoramus, ne serviamus creaturae potius quam creatori. And we English this with a perfect accord to it, We are far from worshipping and adoring whether the Reliques of Martyrs, or the very highest Angels, or any creature in the world. 2.†Ibid. St. Hierome professes, Honoramus reliquias Martyrum, ut eum cujus sunt Martyres adoremus, and we do the same, honour the reliques of Martyrs, that we may adore God whose Martyrs they are. 3. He concludes against him, that by his Doctrine, he affirm'd the Reliques of Peter and Paul to be unclean, and that as oft as men entred the Basilicae of the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, so oft they payed veneration to the Temples of Idols, that the candles lighted before them were Ensigns of Idolatry, nay further, that the body of Christ laid in the Grave was uncl…an. And these consequences we dislike as much as St. Hierome, and the principle whatever it was that own'd them. 4. The honour which he avouched due to the Reliques of the Martyrs, he made good by the words of the Psalmist, Pretious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his Saints, (and we believe it as precious, as any) that the bones of dead men do not pollute those that touch them, by Elisha's touching, when he raised the dead, and the like, and we doubt not of the conclusion, and so need not that medium to prove it. All that we differ in from St. Hierome in that Epistle, is, 1. That we use no reproaches against them that charge us with Doctrines, that we never taught. 2. That we do not impose our own consequences upon the Doctrine of Vigilantius, or any man else, without having seen his writings, as*Plura dictare volueram, si librorum ipsius ad nos voluisses mit…ere cantilenas, ut scire possemus ad quae rescribere deberemus. Nunc cutem aerem verberavimus — it seems St. Hierome did. 3. That he could think Phinees's javeline, Elias's austerity, the zeal of Simon Cananaeus (not Simon of Canance, as S. W. translates it, (I desire to know by the next, whether Cananee be the name of a place, or a man) but in plain words Simon the Zelote, Luk. VI. 15. called foreign, or foreign, not from the name of a place, but from foreign zeal) Peters severity on Ananias and Saphira, &c. and the command of shedding the blood of the Seducers, Deut. XIII. any way applicable to the present circumstances, as the case then stood between him and Vigilantius. And S. W. which hath avouched these words from St. Hierome, in defense of contumely, might have done well to assure us, he would not extend them to any further liberty, than he hath already taken, (to the metaphorical only, not real lance) or transcribe this more dangerous severity, this bloodyer copy from him.
P. 24.5. Secondly, 'tis not duely suggested that these harsh expressions of St. Hierome, which had there been premised, fell on Vigilantius for denying veneration to holy reliques; In his Book against Vigilantius (which S. W. calls his second Epistle, and produces the greatest store of the harsh expressions from thence) he might have seen other manner of Doctrines layd by St. Hierome to his charge, and that upon sight of his writings, which by this time he saith he had received from Riparius and Desiderius, viz. that Vigils were to be condemn'd, that Allelujah was never to be sung but at Easter, that continence was heresie, that pudicitiousnesse or single life was a seminary of lust. And till D. H. and the Protestants concurre with him in all these, who as yet have not transcribed one of them, how can it be truely said, that these harsh expressions, which were poured out on all these conjoyned, are due to us, upon that only score, upon which, as hath been shewed, no least severity can be due to us?
6. Lastly, when with this matter of St. Hieromes dealing with Vigilantius. S. W. compares his own temper, and expects my thanks for his moderation, that he did not call me monster, prodigious monster, possess'd with the devil, &c. adding that all these were my due, as I am in the same fault with Vigilantius, besides what accrues to me of later titles] I shall ask him these two questions, somewhat distant the one from the other, 1. How he can think to excuse this his great moderation, that he hath not called me so many monsters and Demoniacks as St. Hierome did Vigilantius? how he hath made good the ingagements, under which he hath concluded himself, both by standing to St. Hieromes award and example, and by acknowledging it necessary duty, if he hath any zeal and care of his conscience, to use the means, which wit and art can invent to discredit, disparage—as far as truth can justifie his words? Hath he not here resolved, that truth gives as much my due, as was payd to Vigilantius? with what care of his conscience then, if he were before in earnest, he could for the bribe of a few thanks (the utmost he demands) use this temper, and abstein from those obvious arts, and wayes, which St. Hierome had traced before him?] is my first question, not founded in what he hath really performed by way of temper, but what he saith he hath performed.
7. The second is, how he hath deserved my thanks for his moderation, when at the same time he tells me, there is as much due to me, on one score, as all St. Hieromes expressions amount to, and yet more accruing to me out of other titles? Doth he that tells a man publikely, that the title of frantick monster, prodigious monster, possess'd with the Devil, with an unclean Spirit, Snake, famous for wickednesse, block-head, &c. (as S. W. hath contracted them) are due to him for one fault beside what accrues to him out of later titles, deserve his thanks, for not whipping him with Scorpions? What nice distinction hath he discovered betwixt giving me these titles, and publickly telling me and all other men, they are due to me? 'Tis true indeed, that money is not payd, when 'tis only acknowledged due, but is it so in railing? Is it not one of the figures of that art, to tell his antagonist, this and this worst of titles is his due, yea much more also, than that, but he is kinde, and will not deal thus with him, as he deserves. And this piece of art, as all others, S. W. was obliged in conscience to make use of, and accordingly hath discharged his obligation to conscience, to the utmost farthing; and I that am not the Noon-shadow of Vigilantius's pourtraiture, that assert not a syllable of all his heretical dictates, must thank, and be obliged, that I am thus meekly treated, and my only question is, how these thanks came to be so due from me?
8. What he addes of his manner of handling Helvidius, and calling him Snake, and sillyest of men, made famous by wickednesse, dancing Camel,] is I hope by this time answered also, by analogie with his treating of Vigilantius, viz. That I mention'd his dislike of Helvidius's railing (which if it were the*P. 25. l. 1. appealing to his authority, was not to his example, which S. W. unduely joyns together, as if I had appealed to loth) and if he practised otherwise himself, his words are certainly to be heeded before his actions, and the rather, because though through passion or weaknesse he were guilty of it himself, yet it was too foul for him to tolerate in another. I shall not therefore any farther reply to the parallel S. W. makes at large betwixt St. Hierome and himself, in this matter, I had rather be like that Father in his other excellencies, than come within any distance of him in that, which hath alwayes been look'd on as his blemish, and is so far from excusing S. W. that it self is unexcusable.
9. It remains only, that I adde a few words in mine own defense, to clear me from the more and more weaknesse, that S. W. discovers in me, for construing, as he saith, loquacitas, to be railing, St. Hierom's words of Helvidius being these, loquacitatem facundiam existimat.] But I answer, that I cited neither these, nor any other words of St. Hieromes, I only said, in my own words, that he noted▪ it as a great error in Helvidius, that he took railing for eloquence. If it be then now demanded, where he noted it, I answer, in the first Chapter of that Epistle against Helvidius, in several passages, especially in this (of which S. W. recites a part) loquacitatem facundiam existimat & maledicere omnibus bonae conscientiae signum arbitratu…, accepta materia disputandi amplius incipit blasphemare, & quasi de sublimi loco in totum orbem ferre sententiam, meque quia veritate non posset, lacerare convitiis. Here I not only found mention of loquacity, but saw the sort of his loquacity, express'd by evil speaking, blaspheming, censuring, raving, rending innocent persons with reproaches, and this is my ground for discriminating his loquacity from all other species of it, and interpreting it (but that is not construing it) railing. And if here I have shew'd more and more weaknesse than in all the Section, I shall thence take confidence, as far as S. W's judgement will support it, to believe, I have not been very culpable, and so am not as yet much humbled by his Discipline.
10. There be two things still behind in this Section, which being heterogeneous to that of St. Hierome, the main subject, come now to be attended to. 1.P. 23. P. 27. His dilemma concluding the justice of his rigorous expressions. 2. My counterfeiting a mistake that I may by that means fix a slie calumny on a worthy Gentleman. His Dilemma is in these words, Either Doctor H's cause is false, and then 'tis laudable to use zeal against him— or it is true, and then he deserves as great a reprehension, who abuses his cause by going about to defend it by such wilfull falsifications, frauds and weaknesses, as he hath been discovered.] And this as a cure for his begging the question, in supposing me an adversary of the true faith.] This Dilemma I might retort with as much force, as he hath begun it, (i. e. I confesse with little enough, but yet with as much.) Thus, either my cause is true, and then it is not laudable in him to use zeal against it, or to labour to oppresse it with noyse and clamour, or it is false, and then I cannot be so much reprehended for using no better means to defend it, then a bad cause is capable of. But I like not the last part of my dilemma much better than I did his, and therefore having only shewed him the no force of it by this image, I answer, 1. That I take this cure for his begging the question to be palliate, and that it is still a begging the question to affirm, that either my cause is false, or that I have defended it with falsifications, and that I have therein been so much as once discovered. There is a middle betwixt these, my having defended a true cause without any falsifications &c. and till he hath not only said, but proved the contrary, which cannot yet be done in the beginning of this reply to my Discovery of his former Dexterities, his saying it, is the begging the question. 2. In case my cause were false, and his zeal laudable, yet whether contumelies are that laudable zeal, or his twitchings by the beard, pure zeal, and not contumely, is another question, at this present under debate, and therefore now in this Section most unskilfully begg'd by him. 3. Supposing the cause good, and some faults, and weaknesses discovered, in defending it, yet neither would it follow that those supposable faults were either frauds, or falsifications, or any way wilfull (which includes their being known to the author, as to me, I am sure, they are not) any more than the weaknesses are, which are generally most opposite to willfull, nor that they deserved as great a reprehension, be they what they can, as the like in maintaining a bad cause would deserve, the badnesse of the cause being allowable to adde some degree to the guilt, when the falsifications or whatsoever other crimes are supposed equal, and equally wilfull on both sides. 4. Faults may be reprehended without contumely, and so still bare reprehensions come not home to the point in hand, and that S. W's twitchings are bare reprehensions, is another begging of the question, and these be frailties enow in his one Dilemma.
11. Then for the Counterfeited mistake and calumny, thus he layes it, I had, saith he, upon occasion of the evidence of our Churches Infallibility, in my Schism Disarm'd p. 20. told him he might to his amazement see it in that incomparable Treatise of Rushworths Dialogues vindicated from all possible confute by that excellent Apology for it, writ by the learned pen of Mr. Thomas White. Now what does Mr. H.? he tells us that S. W. sayes his arrowes are beyond all possible confute, meaning that S. W. the Author of Schism Disarm'd, was the same with the Author of the Apology for Tradition (though I am certainly informed that he knowes S. W. to be another person) and reports again afterwards the same phrase to the same purpose, and so on, phansying two advantages that I meant to make by this one project.] But before we proceed to more, let us a while reflect on this.
12. His own words, of which there was no doubt, he cites from Schism Disarm'd, naming the very page, where they were, But my words, on which all depended, he gives his Reader no direction to finde, either as he first cites them, or, as he saith, I report afterward the same phrase to the same purpose, Nor can I, who am presumeable to be better acquainted with my own writings than any other Reader, tell whither to repair for this second report of this phrase, and must therefore satisfie my self by resorting to the first, on which the weight seems to be laid, and that is in the Disarmers Dexter. Exam. p. 4. l. 35. where having compared his treating me to the Aethiopians poysoning their little arrowes, I added, having thus imbibed high virtues, they make very quick work, are very killing, or in the Disarmers phrase, beyond all possible confute. And this it seems hath brought on me this unexpected displeasure, and censure of counterfeiting a mistake, and fixing a slie calumny upon a worthy person. But I demand, 1. How is it possible I should have mistaken in these words? Did not S. W. p. 20. use this phrase [beyond all possible confute]? and is not S. W. my Disarmer? and might not I spell these together, and then write, [in my Disarmers phrase, beyond all possible confute]. I confesse, I that took [confute] for a Verb, should not on my own head have used it for a Substantive, and therefore using it so, cited it from my Disarmer, (as if I should now render Simon Cananaeus, Simon of Cananee, I would adde, according to my Disarmers interpretation) but who would think there were any least mistake committed in this, when 'tis palpable there was none?
13. This indeed, to yield some support to his charge, he hath disguised into another form, affirming that I tell him that S. W. sayes, his arrows are beyond all possible confute, and adding that I mean that S. W. was the same with the Author of the Apology for Tradition. But 1. it is v sible that I do not tell him or any man, that S. W. sayes so of his own arrowes, but on the contrary, that 'twas no excellent indication of his perswasions of his own performances, that he deemed it necessary, geminare venenis vulnera, (which he could not think necessary, if they were of themselves in his opinion beyond all possibility of being confuted.) What I farther adde there, is evidently no more than this, that the killingnesse of his arrowes, the impossibility of his being confuted, comes from the high virtues they have imbibed, i. e. from the contumelies (the only parts of his book, which I know my self unqualified to answer in kinde, or make any proportionable return to) and what is this toward telling that S. W. sayes this of his own arrowes?
14. Secondly, having affix'd on me words which I never wrote, 'tis no wonder, but consequent (and in his opinion laudable) that he should proceed, and give them a meaning, which I never meant; And at this rate who can be free from mistakes, from counterfeiting, from calumny, from any thing, that S. W. will say I meant, by words, first of his own framing, and then interpreting also?
15. But neither will all this (which, if allowed, hath ill luck if it cannot do any thing) prove what he hath charged on me, (i. e. my purposely counterfeiting a mistake, &c.) without one farther aid, and that he hath furnished it with also, affirming, that he is certainly informed that I know S. W. to be another person.] Certainly I have no least obligation to make any return to this; yet I shall, by these steps, to perfect the Readers observations of S. W. 1. I am the most competent testifier of mine own secrets, and I am sure, I doe not know, who is the Author of that Book, nor 2. what one name S. W. are the first letters of, nor 3. do I, or ever did I so much as believe ('tis not imaginable I should know) that Mr. S. who was once a Servant to my Lord of D. and hath, as I have heard, assumed to be the Author of Schism Disarm'd, was the Author of that whole Book, but only of a part of it. How then could he be certainly informed, that I knew this, which I know I never so much as believed? If he was informed so, he neither was, nor could be certainly informed (which to my ears signifies the certain truth of his information) and if he was any way informed that I believed it, yet that could not signifie that I knew it, when in truth I neither knew nor believed it. I was told (Sect. 2.) that he was much mine for the sakes of some friends common to him and me; I now demand, did any of them ever so much as tell him, that I believed otherwise, than now I affirm; If any did, let him be named, if they did not, what may not he say that thus speaks? 4. Though I have now no least inducement or obligation to tell him my present thoughts, or suspicions (for above those I cannot be imagined to have penetrated the disguise) of Schisme Dispatcht, yet as far as my present information or conjectures lead me, I shall not be nice to discover it, and it is this, that Mr. S. must not inclose all the honour (or rather just reproach) either of the scoffes, or, which is the second principal ingredient, the cavils of it; And if Mr. Wh. be suspected by many to have brought in liberal contributions to him, I have not much greater arguments to incline my assent to it, than these, 1. That without any occasion given by me, this remote opportunity was laid hold on, sollicitously to avert that suspicion. 2. That in his answer to Mr. Daillee, or Daillees arts discovered, he hath without any disguise treated him in as much ill language, and sometimes upon as little occasion, as I am treated in either of these Replies, and that he may with as much honour have written either, or both of these whole Tracts, as one passage against Mr. Daillee, which I shall for an essay desire S. W. to turn to p. 249. usher'd in, p. 248. with these words, [Here I particularly invite the eye of the serious Reader, to observe how maliciously he (Mr. Daillee) corrupts the Councel of Trent in two very considerable passages.] On the second of these he sets the remark, that the abuse is more grosse and palpable (concerning our Ladies immaculate conception) p. 248. and in the next page, 249. he that p. 4. had profess'd, beside his reason, to be beholding to his nature for its extreme aversnesse to incivilities, and captious proceedings, is yet induced (by what principle I guess not, but it seems neither of reason, nor nature) to fasten on it all these expresse charges of foul play, cheat, falsenesse, perversnesse, want both of face and conscience, more than ordinary malice, desperate notorious absurdity, shamelesse forehead outfacing the whole Catholike world, the title of a bold jugler, all this and more in the compasse of 30 lines) and then concludes at the top of the next page 250. in the greatest foreign of Contumely, that he could reach, [Can any thing be answered in his defense, or any excuse made, why he should not be accounted an impudent lying knave?] This sure is the noting of some fault, personal and moral with a witnesse, and so by S. W's description of contumely, must needs fall under it. And what was it that made all this severity so necessary? Why, saith he, He undertook to prove, that 'tis impossible so to expound the words of the Councel of Trent, that they shall not in plain terms give the lie to all the Fathers, and to render this foul play the more plausible to such as look not well to his fingers, he translates [in hoc decreto] falsely and perversely [in this number] as if the Councel had positively decreed the blessed Virgin not to be in the number of those, who are born in Original sin.] This then being the crime, and the former part of it [that it is impossible to explicate their words, En sort qu' elles ex donnent un desmenti a tous les Peres] being in that place assumed to be proved by an argument, there following by way of Dilemma (to which Mr. Wh. hath not offered a word of answer, and till he had done so, could not reasonably proceed to any sharp Discipline on the conclusion) I must suppose the second part to be it, which alone could be thought to support the crimen falsi, and so be charged in such variety of language, cheat, jugler, &c. viz. that he falsified the words of the Councel, and translated in hoc decreto, in this number] But that could not be, for Mr. Daillee wrote not English but French, and if the English Translator misrendred him, without his privity, 1. That should have been wholly charged on that Translator, and 2. it would not then have amounted to those enormous crimes, of cheat, jugler &c. that now are fasten'd on it, by being misplaced upon Mr. Daillee, who was herein most perfectly innocent. And this is the very truth of the matter, The English Interpreter impertinently (yet probably without any design of seducing any) added those words [in that number] but Mr. Daillee set down the words of the Original Latine of the Councell most punctually, as they lye in the Acts of the Councel, and gave them no other rendring but this, Ils declarent a la sin Que leur intention n' est pas d' y comprendre le bien heureuse et immaculee Vierge Marie mere de Dieu. They declare in the end (of their Decree before-mention'd, En leur Decret) that it was not their intention to comprehend the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary the mother of of God] adding no syllable that sounded to that sense of [in that number] Now 'tis not question'd but Mr. Wh. was abundantly qualified to read, at least to consult the author, whose arts he undertook to discover, in his own language, which if he did, he must needs discern him free from this charge of falsifying, if he did not, he knowes whose fault that was, to condemn a person without due cognizance of his fact, and so from whom the reparations are due. And 'tis not his proemial advertisement, that [the Animadversions on Daille are applyed to the English Translation by T. S. not to the French Original] that will justifie him, for still the title of his Book is, Dailles Arts discovered] to whom the errors of the Translator (by the way, with his good leave, that was not T. S.) are not with the least justice imputable, much lesse are the casual slips of the one any way interpretable to be the inexcusable lyes, and knavery, and impudencies of the other. By the way, it may be remembred, that even that which the Translator conceived to be the meaning of the Councel, is expressely the definition, in the Romanists Catechisme, compiled for universal use by Cardinal Bellarmine, Christ. Doctr. p. 142. Our Lady had never any spot of sinne, neither Original nor Actual. This one instance I have chosen to give, by way of digression from my own to another person, having truely the same dislikes to this sort of treating, when others, as when my self am concerned in it. And lest it should be thought, that poor Hereticks are the only men, that meet with this course usage from him, I referre the Reader to his Ordinary the Bishop of Chalcedon his Letter to him, part of which is inserted in G. L.s Manifest to his Brethren residing in England, in these words. Only for your souls sake I request you to leave those naughty reproaches which you give to one equall to your self in all things, I pray you forget not the words of the Apostle, Maledici regnum Dei non consequentur, or of our Saviour, Qui dixerit fratri suo, …atue, reus crit Gehennae ignis, such reproachfull words as you use in your Letter, become neither Christian, nor Priest, but discover too too great passion, and again— To omit the taunts of Paramount Bishop, and domineering wayes, and such others, which you bestow upon my self, it seems you have forgotten your solemn promise which you made at your Ordination, to give reverence and obedience to your Ordinary, &c.
16. Ere I leave this Theme, I am yet farther to take notice of the two advantages which I am suggested to have aimed at in this wilfull mistake, 1. That I honour my self in making the world beleive I had so worthy an adversary as that miracle of wit and learning. 2. That I dishonour my pretended adversary as the vainest person in the world, by intimating [that himself gave himself such an high character. To these I answer joyntly. 1. That I could have no aims in saying that, which, as hath already appeared, I never said. 2. That I could never foresee that the world would collect that from my words, which I neither said nor thought, and which my accuser at the same time saith was contrary to my knowledge.
17. As for the severals, they now can need no reply, yet ex abundanti I shall give them some. 1. That I might as reasonably be allowed thus to honour my self (if it were but to reward the patience of being in S. W's company so long) as 'tis certain Mr. Wh. assumes to have answered two persons of such a quality,P. 5. as the Protestant party never produced before, and seems to have chosen them to live by, or die with, whose el…quence none were found to exceed, whose wits none will be found to equall— adding much more in their praises, and thus much in Mr. Dailles, *P. 260.that those noble Lords had great reason highly to esteem him, and yet sure he doth more than desire to make the world believe, he had such worthy adversaries, 'twere but a poor satisfaction this, if they were not his Captives too. And why might not another man have S W's pardon,P. 28. if having such an example from a person of the profoundest humility (as S. W. that best knowes, assures us also) he had permitted this spark of ambition a while to have warmed his breast? It might perhaps have inspirited him, and raised his faculties above that meannesse, that S. W. at every turn discovers in him, and so contributed to the glorys of his triumphs also, which now are likely to be obscured by the despicablenesse of his Captive. But whatever just title I might have to his pardon for this insolence, I may with truth professe, I have no inclination to be guilty of it, and assure him, 1. That I am not fond of so much as seeming to enter the lists with Gyants, of having to do with miracles of any sort, especially those of wit, having been advertised long since, that quanto ingeniosores sunt, tanto iracundius docent, the more miraculously quick their own perceptions are, the lesse patience they have for those that do not as nimbly apprehend, and submissively embrace them; were it not for this dread of this ill attendant of his wit, I should not disown the ambition of beholding his learning, that I might benefit by it, which I never did in the least from all my conversation with S. W. and therefore if he be but in the number of those whom he calls the meanest and youngest of his Scholars, Florid. l. ….he must put me in minde of what Apuleius saith of the Indians, ad nascentem solem siti sunt, et in toto corpore nox est, for I yet discern not, that he hath considerably edified or improved by his neernesse to him. 2. I shall ask what honour it was to Mr. Daille that the world knew (which is more than believing) that this worthy man had written against him? Can any man be meaner, and more uncapable of true honour, than he is there (as even now appeared) represented to be? and yet he hath attained that honour, who then need despair, that were ambitious of the like? 3. What advantage were it for him, that had sought honour from the worthinesse of his adversary, presently (as S. W. supposes) to dishonour him? were it still an honour to combat with the vainest person in the world, or to have him appear thus vain, with whom I was to combate? Yet these, and thus unreconacileble are the advantages that S.W's mint would help me to. 'Tis certain Mr. White could not need his own praises (and so must have been impertinently vain in this contrivance) His friends have freely bestowed them on him, and I heartily wish, that having so many titles to them, he may never do any thing to blemish them.
18. My greatest quarrel to him as a man I have already express'd, and should not have done so, had it not been as legible to all under his own and anothers hand, as it is now under mine. But as to a writer of Controversies, I have this other, that the answering of his Apology for the Dialogues, is not the way to satisfie the Romanists, there being few of those which go on his grounds, either in the notion of Tradition, or some other particular points of Controversie. In relation to the former it was that Mr. White hath not only told us expressely in his Epistle Dedicatory before that Apology, that the Doctrine of Rushworths Dialogues takes a path not much beaten by our modern Controvertists, but farther gives us (in the beginning of the Apology it self) the first rise of his way, from a slight familiar conference between him and his Kinsman, as it were only for exercise to train themselves, and practise their postures, which now by the oppositions of those two Lords seems (to him) to spread it self into a publick and solemn warre.] Which though poetically spoken, and above the proportion of vide as concurrere bellum, Atque virum— yet he can make good the phrase, he saith, without much straining, since the eminent names on the one side (a private Letter of the Lord Digby, and a short Reply of the Lord Folkland) and the great advantages of ground on the other (one single person on that advantageous ground) may justly be admitted to supply the number of an Army in both; I may adde that that Army being of two sides, must, if any, be two armies (and that would be newes indeed, two Armies made up of three men.) That it is not otherwise than in this poetick Dialect, and in the Authors fancy, grown much more numerous since, I may safely collect from S. W. who, I suppose, hath narrowly observed the progress of this doctrin, and without respect to his interest truely told me, that few there are that have refined their understanding to this degree of discerningness, though he perceived to his comfort that the best sort of wits (himself, I suppose, and some, but still few others) which sure are not the most, begin (and do yet but begin) thus to own their reason. And for the latter 'tis no secret, that other of his tenets were not liked, if they had, they had not been, as himself in a second Epistle Dedicatory before that Apology, saith, so deeply censured even by Catholikes (whom he there censures back again, as unworthy the Function they professe, and highly obstructive of the progresse of the Catholike Faith, noting them of Destructive errors, of striving to possesse the Church of God, and break the eternal rule of Faith) and in fine condemned at Rome. And then what honour it may be, I know not, but truely I see not the advantage would accrue from such a duell, wherein so few beside the Combatants, would think themselves concerned; And that is one sufficient reason (beside the no obligation to be for ever in the Palestra) why the challenge so oft intimated in Sch. Disarm'd and Dispatcht, to enter the lists with that Apologist, is not yet accepted. It were not hard to make that return to him, which would satisfie all disinterested persons of either party, but those having no need of, nor demanding that satisfaction, there is no hope of satisfying those few others, that are resolved it is beyond all possible refute, the deemed certainty of which perswasion layes on them a necessity of concluding every thing ridiculous, and nonsensicall, that is aimed against it. 'Tis fitter then that these few should be permitted to enjoy their own humors, then that they should be studiously, but impertinently disquieted. Another reason there is, which hath weight with me; The title of that Apology promises an answer to the exceptions of the Lords Falkland and Digby, the former of which I know hath very largely and fully refuted one answer of his (which therefore himself styles*Apol. p. 3. an unlicked mola) to that Lords little discourse of Infallibility; setting down the full of his argument, and well nigh of his words, and giving them so fair a Reply, that the sweetnesse of it†Apol. p. 6. surprized him, he acknowledges, with admiration. But to this the Apologist hath not made those regular, and equal returns, that the Reader might expect, and were due (if but by way of reparation for the defects of his former, above*See Answ. to L. Falkl. p. 27. and L. Falkl.'s Reply, p. 176. half of which was spent, before he pretends to give any answer to, or take the least notice of his adversary) but†Apol. p. 4. as he professes, to select such objections as he (the only judge in this matter) thinks really to interest the Controversie, and to handle them without relation to books or distinction of Authors, or citations of places, as one that seeks truth, not the glory of confuting, or vanity of answering (when yet in the title page, the most conspicuous place in the City, it was distinctly proclaimed, that those Lords exceptions were answered) so he hath accordingly performed, producing what objections he thought fit, not noting from whence they were produced. And if this have rendred that Lords discourse lesse defensible, and his adversaries beyond all possible refute, this was a piece of skill in the manager, and let not S. W. feign to himself any other reason of it. I have now on his summons given my attendance and surveyed it a second time, and find some things very true, and seasonably observed, as that neither the Chiliasts nor the Arrians had any title to universal Tradition (which if he learnt not from the Preaching Protestants, was yet surely no newes to them, nor the least prejudice to our pretensions, nor refutation of his Lordship, as to that of the Chiliasts, hath*View of Infallib. p. 87, &c. elsewhere largely been manifested) that†P. 111. if impertinent curiosities be hindred from importuning the Church, her truths will undoubtedly be seen in her belief and practice without making new definitions; that*P. 117. probable arguments have no truth in them, nor is†P. 146. a conclusion neerer being true for an hundred unconvincing arguments, then for one, that*P. 195. the place urged by Mr. Daille out of Hegesippus of heresie deflowring the Church after the Apostles death, belonged only to the rising up of hereticks against the Church not to the Churches corruption, (if he had added that the hereticks were there specified to be the foreign, the Gnosticks, he had fully confirmed his interpretation.) But in divers other particulars he hath not shew'd himself that miracle, that S. W. tells us of, especially in interpreting the Greek of the New Testament, as foreign, Lu. 1.1.†P. 165. in great abundance acted, foreign, v. 3. present at all things almost from the beginning, foreign, Joh. V. 39.*P. 152. you deceive your selves if you think you have life in them, foreign, Act. XXVI. 22.†P. 159. testifying or protesting to great and little that I spoke nothing. So likewise in his account of other Greek passages, as of that of*P. 233. Joannes Thessalonicensis, that he saith no such thing as Daille makes him say, [viz. that the Church held Angels had subtile and airy bodyes] only this, that the Church knowes Angels to be intelligent Creatures] when yet the expresse words are, foreign, the Catholike Church acknowledges, or is of opinion (as foreign sententia is from foreign, and as foreign and foreign, are exactly the same both in the nature of the words and in use, though he guesse otherwise*P. 81. elsewhere) that they are intelligent, not indeed altogether incorporeal and invisible, but thin-bodyed, and airy or fiery. These I mention, as things manifest to every eye, and shall not here, so much out of the place, (anon there will be a fitter season) descend to any matters of the main dispute or controversie, wherein I must not expect S. W. will be of my minde: But if in these which I have named he will not, the Reader will know what sentence to passe on Tutor and Disciple both. And thus much for this learned Author, upon S. W's importunity, and withall to give him the reason of that silence, which is, it seems, misinterpreted amazement, the least degree of which I know no person that ever was under, upon the account which S. W. mentions.
19. This Section concludes with a reflection on Irenaeus his words of much laughter, and he hath replyed to them by fiction of other words, that Irenaeus might have said, but hath not; And then passing them on Mr. H. and appealing to the Readers eyes, if they were not very suteable, he hath shew'd him nothing, but that he was obliged to write another Defense, of Calumny, after this of Contumely, and then examine which were the most necessary accomplishment of a Catholike Controver…ist.