Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist, Chapter 1 · Section 4
SECT. IV.
My grievous mistakes vindicated, and the charge retorted. Contumelies the weapon only of the conquered and desperate. Launoy's judgement of them. The comparison betwixt perjury, and perverse treating of matters of Religion. The Answerers obligation to prove some things. What dealing is expectable from S. W. The affinity betwixt the Epistle of the Cath. Gentleman, and the first part of Sch. Dis. Three other charges answered.
1. HIs fourth Section, the last on this subject, wherein his Defense, in relation to contumelies, is compleated, is the charging on me a grievous mistake committed in even ground, in a plain Epistle to the Reader. 'Twill cost us some circuit and windlace, to discern wherein this mistake consists. First he tells us the design of that his Epistle, to render the Reader an account, why the civility of his adversary should not hinder him from giving him his own, if the care of an eternal good interested his zeal to lay him open, and then addes the two parallel questions, which he proposed in these words, How would you take it if one should spit in your face, and justifie the affront because his breath is sweet, &c. And then again repeating his design in the questions, he reproaches me for not understanding it in my answer, (which yet was punctual… to his question, telling him how a Christian were bound to take it, if any man should spit in his face, were the breath swee… or otherwise) To this rebuke I answer, 1. That if to a questi n asked, I had given a punctual answer, abstracting from the main design of it, this might yet be farre from a grievous mistake. For unlesse the particularity of the design have such an influence on the question, that the answer to the question will be unsufficient, unlesse the design be explicitely taken notice of, there is sure no mistake at all in this method.
2. But then 2. the answer which I gave, was perfectly home to the design, as well as to the question, which I shall thus manifest to him. The question I must suppose pertinent to the businesse in hand, and that was certainly for the justifying of S. W's dealing in Sch. Dis. and that precisely in the point of rude blowes, or contumelies only, and not as 'tis now pretended, of giving the adversary his own (which is bare justice) or laying open, discovering the infirmities of his reasoning (which if it be no more then so, is justice again) This is most visible in the first words of the Epistle [I know you will be objecting that the blowes I give are too rude] (not that I give him his own, &c.) Hence it followes that this, which he now pretends to have been his design, could then have no influence on the question, which was to justifie not his justice, but his rudenesse, and therefore my answer, which reflected only on rudenesse, not on justice, was home to the design. So again for another ingredient in his design, the civility of his adversary, and the influence of that upon his blowes, that certainly I took notice of, and by proving to him from Christs command, that an uncivil adversary was not to be answered with rudenesse, I inferred with advantage, that a civil adversary was not thus to be answered. Lastly, for the care of an eternal good, interessing zeal, which is the last circumstance in his design, that only in my answer I took not notice of, and the reason is clear, because no such care can thus interesse zeal, as to justifie contumely. No mans eternal good depends upon S. W's Contumelies, nor if it did, must he on that account neglect his own, as he certainly doth, that sins in order to the best end, and that the contumelious doth so, had a little before been proved, and was not there again to be insisted on. Let the Reader now, or, if he please, his own conscience judge, on whose side the grievous mistake lyes, on mine, who answered sully to the one true design, that rude blowes were not for any, much lesse for a civil adversary, or on his, that is now fain to substitute a fained design, and convert Rudenesse inhansed by the civility of the adversary, into exact distributive justice, which is known by this very form of words, suum cuique tribuere, giving every man, and so an adversary, his own, which he could not know, as he said he did, his Reader would object to him.
P. 30.3. This is still more manifest against S. W. when he saith, that D H's courteous style could not oblige S. W. to treat him tenderly, and favourably.] Let him now reflect on the first words of his Epistle; Was the Reader supposed to object that he did not treat the Doctor tenderly or favourably? Or had the style of the tract of Schisme courted favour or tendernesse from S. W. (who could not then by any divination be foreseen) or from any man else? Or, is there no middle between favour and too much rudenesse? Whose now is the guilt of totally mistaking the common sense not of a strangers, but of his own plain Epistle? And what can be imagined more plain, than that he hath studiously endeavoured to impose this mistake on others, if he have not really imposed it on himself, which will be believed with most charity to the designer.
4. But that he may indeed prove, that the Doctors wits were not well awake, he layes to my charge, that I neither go about to grant or deny the invalidity of those pretended excuses, which only was to be done] To which I have already answered, that contumelies being proved exterminating sins, 'twas evident none of those pretended motives of them, could be imagined to have any force to justifie them, why then should I grant, or deny the invalidity of these, when upon the grounds promised, all were indifferently invalidated? When then in great vehemence he appeals to my conscience and reason, whether my answer taken from Christs rule of bearing of injuries, be any thing to this question, whether the sweetnesse of the breath justifie the affront of spitting in ones face, or, civil language sufficiently excuse pernicious Doctrine.] I answer him again, that neither of these were questions between him and me, or his Reader, but this only instead of them, whether rude blowes were a sutable return to a civil adversary, nay even to an uncivil, according to the law of Christ? And I am sure my answer (and he cannot doubt it) was pertinent, and more than home to that question. This manner of dealing I desire may be entred into S. W's character.
5. The answer to his second question, he saith, is yet more pleasant, for instead of telling whether swearing demurely be any excuse for perjury, so as to secure it from the punishment or treaty which otherwise might justly be given it, he tells us, saith he, in good sober sadnesse, that a man may use all lawfull means to defend his estate, and discover perjury, and blames me for accusing him of pe…ju…ious tampering— as super-adding to the former …rror, that I mistake the comparison for the thing that it is brought to resemb…e To the substantial part of this charge, the same account belongs, which was given to the former. That the question betwixt us, was not whether civility could excuse from justice, but whether it ought not to secure from rudenesse; and so proportionably, not whether the demurenesse of the swearing or forswearing, could secure the perju…ious from any just returns, but whether so great a supposed crime, as perjury, would justifie the rude blowes, or twitchings by the beard, declamation, or Satyre; Of these only he knowes the question was, and the Readers supposed objection, to which he undertook to give satisfaction by this other double question, what return soever should be made to it; To which therefore I was so to accommodate answer, that it might appear, whether he in his supposed rude blowes were innocent, or no, and that he was not, did irrefragably appear by these two steps, 1. That as all lawfull means might be used to discover perjurie, and defend the estate, so unlawfull might not, and the rude blowes were of that number (the latter part of which being that, whereon the weight of the answer lay, he hath wholly omitted in his recitation, with what fairnesse, let him now judge.) 2. That this of demure perjury was far from the case of S. W's adversary (whose civility was all that was supposed in the objection) and who was as free from that, or any thing proportionable to that, as from Necromancy or sacrificing to Idols. And then what answer could be more pertinent, and home to the purpose, then this, that his plea for rude blowes, depending on the concession or supposition of two things, 1. That the adversary was guilty of perjury, or the like. 2. That rude blowes were a justifiable return to that, neither of these had any degree of truth in them. How this, that was thus plain, made a shift to be disguised, I leave the Reader to consider, and account with S. W. for it.
6. And when for the inflaming of the bill, he addes, that I mistook the similitude for the thing it is brought to resemble. I wonder how he came to be so farre of my counsel; If I repeated the words, which he spake, and made answer in the same Dialect, and there was an allegory in his words, it is strange I may not be allow'd to have had the same in mine; Is my keeping close to his words, an evidence that I forsook his sense? If it be not, I am sure he hath no other from which to inferre it. Nay, is it not yet more evident, that I began that period (now accused of this error) thus, 'Tis certain and visible that as the defending the Church of England from Schisme, bears no proportion to the ruining S. W's estate, so neither is there any oath incumbent on us— and pursue it in like manner, that his style, which was robust in the mention of perjury, becomes much fainter when he comes to the foreign—Now if I had mistaken the similitude, for the thing it was brought to resemble, how could I mention proportion, and foreign? Doth not proportion] expressely signifie the comparison, and though foreign be a Greek word, to which S. W. hath a picque, yet sure it is, in plain English, the second part of a comparison, or the thing resembled by it, and having noted it twice in so few lines, why must I be obliged to note it a third time, to praeclude, what I had not the sagacity to foresee, S. W's discovering of my error? Let the Reader now advise, whether it were any great debasement to S. W. to be set to pick thrumsends out of over-worn garments (as he is pleased to style his examining of testimonies produced out of Scripture and Fathers) who when he is not so imployed,P. 18. sets himself to the picking of holes, where his fingers meet not with the least temptations.
7. Of the same thred exactly is the next, that followes, and is, saith he, greater than all the rest, that when he made it his only plea to the Reader for some blowes— that our controversie was about things concerning mans eternal salvation, and therefore the Reader knowing that he (as all Catholikes) hold their Faith certain, he had no reason to expect that S. W. should favour an opponent in an all of such a nature, as is publikely harmfull to mens souls, yet the Doctor takes no notice of this his plea.] But I answer, 1. That I did take notice of it, and assured him that I took it for a plain begging the question, to suppose that guilt which he was to prove, to assume so early, what he must, but hath not yet so much as attempted to demonstrate. 2. That if I had not taken notice of it, I had not in the least offended, as long as I had proved that Contumelies in a Controvertist were simply unlawfull, for then no supposed truth, or weight of the cause could justifie them. The more Christian and important the cause were, the more it should confine it self to the use of means exactly Christian, and Contumelies were not such, and of these only the controversie was, though he now softens the matter, and asks whether he should favour an opponent in an act of such a nature, and that he would have little contention with me, were the difference in things of lesse concernment than eternity. But sure, 'twas not his favour was courted, nor his not contending, nor any thing expected of him, in return to civility, but what was ever under obligation of strict Christian duty to those who are uncivil, and if without all temptation he will break through those rational, as well as religious tyes, and pretend piety for doing so, and care of souls, and challenge me of wilfull mistakes, for not attending to his pleas, when he thus forsaketh his question, and substitutes another, which was never controverted, I foresee not, when I shall attain to any ordinary degree of his favour.
8. So when he saith, I transfer the matter from the publick injury to mens Souls, to the case of private injury, and then asks, Whether if a man be certainly held to have ruin'd some Souls eternally, Christ bids him let him ruine more?] He is doubly mistaken; for 1. I only shewed from Christs word, that even Injuries are not to be repayed with Injuries, much less Civility with Contumelies, and this must hold in the most publick Concernment, as well as in the most private, unless Contumely be proved to be in the number of those things, that are allowed in Gods Cause, or in the cause of Souls, though not in mans cause, or the matters of his Body and Estate; which as it is most untrue, so 'tis not here pretended to be proved to have truth in it. 2. I do not endeavour to perswade him, that he that can hinder that which he deems the ruining of any Soul, shall be blameless in permitting it, or that Christs precept, of turning the other Cheek belongs to him; but 1. That unlawfull means are not to be used for the most glorious end, and Contumely is such: And 2. That it hath no propriety to the pretended end, being but the Weapons of those that are desperatly worsted, and not rationably supposable to be made use of by any other. One of their own*D. Lauroy de Bull Sab. Johan. XXII. p. 127. Sorbon Doctors, formerly mentioned, in his dispute with the Carmelites, about a supposititious Bull, gives for the seventeenth, or last reason to prove it such, the Contumeliosus scribendi modus, that the Advocates of the Bull used against their Adversaries, when they wanted Arguments substituting reproaches; concluding in those words, which may be competent to conclude this matter. Quis autem nescit cordatos & cruditos viros in ea versari sententia, ut omnino putent calumnias argumentum esse desperatae causa, ac perditae quam certissimum? Calumniae siquidem arma sunt eorum qui vincuntur. The Argument appeared to him of so much force, that he makes use of it again on a like occasion, and in the same words, de Bull. Alexandri, V. c. XII. Ʋndecima suppositionis ratio ex contumelioso scribendi modo. And again, de Bull. Clem. VII. c. 3. Id est primo manifestum ex contumeliis, quae bonarum rationum vices obeunt. His very first reason, and that sufficient to manifest the matter in hand, he takes from the Disputers Contumelies, which supply the place of good reasons. And once more de Bull. Alex. V. c. XIII. Ad convincendam fraudem accedunt probra & maledicta, quibus Cheronius & Aquinas enervia responsa, & aridas emaciatasque rationes contegunt, ac veluti saginant; sperant fore, ut sic bene curata responsionum & rationum suarum prima cutis tentura sit lectorum oculos, & impeditura, ne in ipsam saniem earum & vitium penetrare possent. I leave S. W. to english it, and observe that it is not an heterodoxe-protestant-doctrine, this, to think that Contumely is not necessary to a Controvertist. What then shall be said of (that Shepherd) that care of Souls, which by its own ill managery tends so regularly to the betraying of them, and interpretatively joyns with the deemed Wolf against the Sheep.
9. Nec dum finitus- My weaknesses are not yet at an end, I sayd, that if he mark it, his Style that was robust in the mention of perjury, is grown much fainter, when he comes to the foreign, pre…nds to no more than perverse meaning and abusive treating matters of Religion. And this is heavily charged upon me that I make account that abusesive treating matters of Religion, which is able to plunge millions of Souls into eternall damnation, is of less moment then perjury against ones temporall estate.] But I answer, that the phrase against ones temporall estate is here put in by S. W. above what my words yeilded him. 'Tis evident the Comparison I observed, was betwixt Perjury, on one side, and perverse meaning and abusive treating on the other side, yet neither simply considered, but supposing the matter, viz. Matters of Religion, refer'd to, both in the comparison and the thing signified, to be the same. This I was to suppose in all Justice to his words, who used that mention of Perjury, as a resemblance, (and even now rebuked me, when he conceived I had not so understood it) and then could not confine it to his temporall Estate, (as now to found his rebuke he hath chosen to do) because on that he could not think my Tract of Scisme had any influence, but imdefinitely mentioned ruining their Estate by Perjury; where I supposed there was a spirituall as well as temporall estate, and accordingly ('tis visible p. 7.) accommodated my answer, in relation whether to his earthly or heavenly possessions Thus hard is it to forestall S. W's severities, when one while I am accused for not taking notice of his similitude, and after when I doe take notice of it, and ground my answer upon it, I am then fetcht back to the letter, as if it had not been a similitude, and rebuked for my weaknesse in that also. But this artifice (by the interposition of [temporal] both to mine, and his own words) being now discovered, I appeal to him, whether it be not a growing fainter, when his style that began big, with ruining by perjury, and, if it observed decorum, ought to be answered by somewhat as high and criminous as perjury, and as noxious to the souls, as that which ruins the temporal estate, is to that, is yet dwindled into perverse meaning, which is not so much as perverse speaking (no man being able to affirm of anothers meaning, which is not express'd) when yet perverse speaking is not neer so much as ruining by perjury, and into abusive treating, which again supposing the matter the same (as it is manifest I supposed) is much lesse than perjurious ruining.
10. Having triumph'd over this piece of conquered aire of his own creating, he asks very demurely if this Doctor be fit to have the charge of souls, who professes to set more by his temporal, than their eternal felicity?] And I as seriously demand, whether any the least heed be due to the observations of one, that can thus put words in his adversaries mouth, and then accuse him for the ill consequences of them, which if he hath so little charity to hereticks, as to believe him guilty of, he will hardly have so mean an opinion of his skill, as to expect he should professe it, if he were guilty. 'Tis not long since I was rebuked,P. 28. for professing an earnest desire to speak the full truth of God, and then that was an indication of Pharisaical hypocrisie, and now I am brought on the Stage, without any disguise (and so my hypocrisie is dropt off) supposed to make open profession of profanenesse, and no crimes fit enough for me, but those which are unreconcileable with one another, so that I shall have the honour to be a miracle of something; How much more then will be owing to S. W. who hath the creative power to make me so?
11. The Reader will be glad of the newes, that we are now coming to the last part in his charge in this matter. And what is that? That I complain he begges the question to suppose that guilt which he was to prove, to assume so early in the Epistle to the Reader what he must (but hath not yet so much as attempted to) demonstrate. Where first he will note, that Doctor H. would have men believe that he made account that the Epistle to the Reader is to be writ by the Author before he writes the Book, next that he pretends that S. W. who was to answer his book, ought to prove and demonstrate, i. e. oppose and object, which are, saith he, two very good counterfeited and affected mistakes] And granting that they are so, my only question is, who 'tis to whom the reward of them is due, to me, who only supposed that an Epistle was prefixed before the book, and would first be read, though written last, and could not desire to appear to think it written before the book, when in my whole discourse I supposed it to be an apology for the errors of the book, or, to him that feigns me thus to mistake, when he could not but see I did not, and had no temptation to affixe it on me, but that I said he begged the question in it, and assumed what he had not yet in that Epistle attempted to demonstrate, which whensoever 'tis done, be it before, or after the writing of the book, is the guilt of that Elench, and must needs be so, unlesse being not attempted to be demonstrated in the Epistle, it were more than attempted in the book, which I shall still avouch, and in due time make apparent, that it was not.
12. His other note, or branch of charge is more notable, making it an error in me, to pretend that he who was to answer, ought to prove, &c. But I hope the Reader may be allowed to remember, what it was that I thought him bound to prove, even nothing else, but his charge of falsifying, which I deemed the lowest, which could bear any proportion with that of ruining his estate by perjury. Of this 'tis evident I spake, when I said, I trust it shall appear, that there is not one single falsity in that whole tract of Schisme, and his supposing the contrary was the only petitio principii, which there I charged on him. And if now it be the priviledge of an answerer, that he may charge of falsifying, without proof of his charge, and may not have his charge denyed, or the proofs of it required, (which is all that is meant by telling him, he begges the question) and this upon the prerogative of an answerer, and because to prove or demonstrate is to oppose and object, then I see there be other g…ounds to authorize Calumnies, and Contumelies, beside that of the deemed certainty of his faith, and he might but have said he was the answerer, and superseded all this large trouble of any farther justification.
13. From these thus specified weaknesses, the Reader is advised to consider what a pitifull spectacle the Doctor would prove, if S. W. were but at leasure to pursue him.] And I believe so too, for it cannot but extort some degree of compassion, to see any man set to so sad a task, of wiping off all those phasmes of guilt, which S. W's representations can fixe on him. By this I suppose the Reader sees, what he is to look for, and that the watery colours which are said to be in the Rainbow, are only in S. W's eye, and produced by it. And so we are at an end of his defense of the blowes, which the Reader, he knew, would judge too rude, till he had timely met, and disabused him; with what rigorous evidences, he will now discern, better than through S. W's Opticke.
14. What he addes, in conclusion of his fourth Section, concerning my opinion of the affinity betwixt the Epistle of the Catholike Gentleman and the first part of Schisme Disarm'd, I shall no farther reply to, than that I was cautious to set this down, as my opinion only, wherein as I may be mistaken, so I may still be in the right, notwithstanding the argument drawn from the style, which is not the same in a letter, and in a Discourse, in hast, and on greater deliberation, when the Author desires to disguise, and when to discover himself. In either of these cases, more probable judgements are made by lesser characters, which are not so sure to be guarded by the disguiser, as are those, which he knowes are most visible. But I know such judgements to be deceivable, and the sagacity that Caesar had in discerning any period of Ciceroes, to have been farre greater, and more unerring, than I ever aspire to have of S. W's lines, and that upon many reasons of difference. If I shall now upon his bare word change my minde, and perswade my self that the Author of that Epistle was one of my old acquaintance, I am sure I shall be press'd with the same difficulty, not discerning it by the style to be penn'd by any such, and having other arguments of so much more force to the contrary, that unlesse Mr. Cressy, which really is one of mine old acquaintance, tell me he was the Author of that letter, or some othe…, whom my memory hath quite lost, reminde me that he was of my old acquaintance, it will still be my wisest course to advise of it, and remember how extrinsecal to the arguments, and how impertinent it is, who is the penner, or who the suggester of them.
14. But ere this Section concludes, I must once more be rebuked, for styling my answer to Sch. Disarm'd an Appendix to the Reply to the Catholike Gentleman, and a gleaning after the rake, when the former consisted of 303. pages, and the latter but of 165. as if husbandmen, saith he, used to rake armfulls, and leave cart-loads to be gleaned.] But 1. I was n…t obliged to be a good husband-man by that or any equal necessity, which is affirmed to ly on S. W. to render all that his adversary saith, nonsensical. 2. My ill husbandry was not yet of that degree, as to qualifie it for his rebuke, who at the same time made the proportion of 165. to 303. to be parallel to the proportion of armfulls to cart-loads, which concludes lesse than two armfulls to make a cart-load. 3. I now see it was not really so great, nor so pleasant an error (which p. 31. was in me accused as such) to mistake the comparison or similitude for the thing it is brought to resemble, or else 2. that S. W. is a mortal, and subject to error, like other men, or 3. that some kinde of creatures are refresh'd with those plunges in the water, which would drown others; for 'tis certain, had not S. W. here thus mistaken, he might well have understood, that I only meant by the similitude of gleaning, to expresse my care (in the second Answer, that to Sch. Disarmed) to gather up, and make returns, to all, were it much, or little, which I had not taken notice of in the Reply to the Catholike Gentleman. And yet 4. if he review that third Section of mine, to which he makes this answer, he shall finde that it was but the first part of Schisme Disarm'd, which I thought penn'd by the same hand, that wrote that Catholike Gentlemans letter, and consequently that my farther answer to that part, was it, which would have but the nature of an appendage, and so it had, being evidently much shorter, than the former reply, amounting to no more but 74. pages, which notwithstanding, there remained still the two other parts, and those might be allowed to have many fresh passages, the answers to which might, with S. W's good leave, be bound up with that Appendix.
15. And yet there are two things more to be charged on me, 1. That I said he had time to have taken notice of my Reply to the Catholike Gentleman, 2. that I apprehended not all truth, because not that of his occasions.] I answer, 1. That if at the Printing of Schisme Disarm'd, he had not seen, or heard of my Reply to that letter, it must be through some circumstances, which I could not then, nor can now after his admonition app…ehend. For where-ever he were, the Reply might reach him as well as the Original Tract of Schisme. 2. I might also say with perfect truth, that he had time to take notice of it, it being competently certain, that the space of many moneths, which intervened between the one and the other is called time, and that that was afforded him, as well as any other; so that these two rebukes are of the strein of the many foregoing: Yet if in this Dispatch of his he shall be found to have made full returns to that whole Reply, the matter is not great; if he shall not, (as certainly I may have his leave to assume he hath not, having not offer'd any syllable to the latter half of it) then I have, under his hand here, his leave to conclude, that he deems it not likely to indammage those dear souls of his brethren; And so all may be safely believed, which he hath not attempted to refute, and that will prove a farre greatest part of that book; Which is all I have need to say to these concluding charges. It is now somewhat more then time that I should set a period to this Theme and Chapter, whose length may yet usefully serve the Reader, and help him to some variety of experiments concerning S. W's manner of managing Controversies, over and above the satisfying of the main engagement, (the first perhaps that was ever solemnly written on the subject) examining his plea for Contumelies.