emptynesse of these Papers and more then so to render a reason of it viz the fate which they were under by a necessity of attending this Apologist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which yeilded them occasion of little variety unlesse they would extravagate Yet could he not resist the Reasons which charged it on him as a duty thus confidently to importune the Reader with the view of the whole matter as farre as it hath past between them setting downe that Answer to and this Vindication of his Lordships Arguments by Chapters and then not doe him the least injustice adding in the end of all the Answerers marginall Replyes and that concluding Sheet that even now was mentioned with a Rejoynder to that also By all this endeavouring to lay grounds for all men to judge how little truth there is in that so Epidemicall perswasion that there is no middle betwixt asserting an Infallible Judge and the falling headlong into all the Schismes and Haeresies of this present age My Conscience assuring me that the grounds on which the establish'd Church of England is founded are of so rare an excellent mixture that as none but intelligent truely Christian minds can sufficiently value the composition so there is no other in Europe so likely to preserve Peace and Unity if what prudent Lawes had so long agoe designed they now were able to uphold For want of which and which onely it is that at present the whole Fabricke lyes polluted in confusion and in blood and hopes not for any binding up of wounds for restauration of any thing that lookes like Christian till the faith of the reformed English have the happinesse to be weighed prudently and the military Sword being timely sheathed the Power and Lawes of Peace be returned into those hands which are ordained by GOD the Defenders of it H. H. Of the INFALLIBILITY of the CHURCH of ROME A Discourse written by the Lord Viscount FALKLAND Section 1 TO him that doubts whether the Church of Rome have any errors they answer that She hath none for She never can have any This being so much harder to believe than the first had need be proved by some certaine arguments if they expect that the belief of this one should draw on whatsoever else they please to propose Yet this is offered to be proved by no better wayes than those by which we offer to prove she hath erred Which are arguments from Scripture Reason and Antient Writers all which they say themselves are fallible for nothing is not so but the Church which if it be the onely infallible determination and that can never be believed upon its owne authority we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible for these other waies of proof they say may deceive both them and us and so neither side is bound to believe them Section 2 If they say that an argument out of Scripture is sufficient ground of Divine faith why are they so offended with the Protestants for believing every part of their Religion upon that ground upon which they build all theirs at once and if following the same Rule with equall desire of finding the truth by it having neither of those qualities which Isidorus Pelusiota sayes are the causes of all Heresies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pride and prejudication why should God be more offended with the one than the other though they chance to erre Section 3 They say the Church is therefore made infallible by God that all men may have some certain Guide yet though it be infallible unlesse it both plainly appeare to be so for it is not certaine to whom it doth not appeare certaine and unlesse it be manifest which is the Church God hath not attained his end and it were to set a Ladder to Heaven and seem to have a great care of my going up whereas unlesse there be care taken that I may know this Ladder is here to that purpose it were as good for me it had never been set Section 4 If they say we may know it for that generall and constant Tradition instructs us in it I answer that ignorant people cannot know this and so it can be no Rule for them and if learned people mistake in this there can be no condemnation for them For suppose to know whether the Church of Rome may erre as a way which will conclude against her but not for her for if She hath erred certainly She may but though She hath not erred hitherto it followes not that She cannot erre I seeke whether She have erred and conceiving She hath contradicted her selfe conclude necessarily She hath erred I suppose it not damnable though I erre in my judgement because I trie the Church by one of those touch-stones her self appoints me which is Conformity with the Antient. For to say I am to believe the present Church that it differs not from the former though it seem to me to doe so is to send me to a Witnesse and bid me not believe it Section 5 Now to say the Church is provided for a Guide of faith but must be known by such marks as the ignorant cannot seek it by and the learned may chance not to find it by though seeking it with all diligence and without all prejudice can no way satisfie me Section 6 If they say God will reveal the truth to whosoever seeks it in these wayes sincerely this saying both sides will without meanes of being confuted make use of therefore it would be as good that neither did Section 7 When they have proved the Church to be infallible yet to my understanding they have proceeded nothing farther unlesse we can be sure which is it for it signifies onely that God will alwaies have a Church which shall not erre but not that such or such a Succession shall be alwaies in the right not that the Bishop of such a place and the Clergy that adheres to him shall alwaies continue in the true faith So that if they say the Greek Church is not the Church because by its owne confession it is not infallible I answer that it may be now the Church and may hereafter erre and so not be now infallible and yet the Church never erre because before their fall from truth others may arise to maintain it who then will be the Church and so the Church may still be infallible though not in respect of any set persons whom we may know at all times for our Guide Section 8 Then if they prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church and not the Greeke because their opinions are consonant either to Scripture or Antiquity they run into a circle proving their tenets to be true first because the Church holds them and then theirs to be the true Church because it holds the truth which last though it appeare to me the onely way yet it takes away it's being a Guide which we may follow without examination without which all they say besides is nothing Section
difficulty or subtilty or profit in it either of which whensoever I can finde I professe I shall be most ready to enlarge upon it and now acknowledge it an obligation from the Author if he will point out to me where I shall have fail'd and in other particulars be more mercifull to the reader and my selfe To the 1. §. Chap. 2. Section 1 True it is and we grant it willingly that every proofe that is solid and good must be a notioribus and that every sure conclusion must also be deduced from no other premises or principles then such as be knowne and at least be as certaine as we desire the conclusion should be Neverthelesse we doe absolutely deny that this assertion of ours touching the Churches infallibility is by us offered to be proved by waies no better then our Adversaries offer to prove that she hath erred as this Inquirer pretends we doe for we affirme that our Churches infallibility is proved by reasons which are reall and true and that on the other side the adversary offers to prove the contrary onely by such as be no more then seeming and pretended Now true reason or authority is a way quite different from pretended and much better then it and therefore the Inquirers charge is false or at least light and ineffectuall Must all controversies in Philosophy be undecidable because both sides pretend reason or no suits of Law be judged because both sides pretend Law Certainly whatsoever both sides doe pretend yet there is but one side that hath it as namely but one side of Philosophers have true reason and but one side of contendents have true Law and so in like manner but one side of contending Christians have true reason for them Scripture or Tradition howsoever both may pretend it and therefore we doe not goe about to prove the Church is infallible by the selfe same wayes that you goe about to prove that she hath erred but by wayes that are quite different from them and the same but in name onely and no farther By which it followes that either you are deceived or we and it is not necessary that both And so much for this great and principall difficulty which troubled the Inquirer so much as he writ to London for the solution of it which thing surely was more then needed for it might have been done at Great Tue without consulting London about it or either of our two Vniversities We doe not maintaine as he falsely supposes that Reason Scripture and Fathers be all fallible universally speaking but in some cases only as namely reason is not fallible in such verities as be evident but in other that be not so it is Againe Scripture is a most certain rule whensoever it is certainly expounded otherwise it is not Lastly the Fathers be assured and undoubted witnesses of the Doctrines which were held in their time though not undoubted definers of them And by this answer all the three main propps of this Authors discourse are overthrown and fall unto the ground C. 2. Answ to the 2. Chap. Section 1 To the second Chapter I need only to put you in mind that when his Lordship saith the wayes of proofe that the Church of Rome can never have any errours are no better then those by which we offer to prove she hath erred and nameth three heads of Arguments from Scripture Reason and Ancient writers and proveth you to affirme all these are infallible because nothing is in your opinion infallible but the Church and from thence concludes that we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible because all the meanes proposed to induce that knowledge being of necessity somewhat else beside that only infallible must needs be fallible it will be very unsufficient in you to reply that his Lordship hath not said true in the first particular upon no other ground of proofe but only because you affirme that the Churches infallibility is proved by Reasons which are really true and that the contrary is by us offered to be prov'd only by such as be only seeming and pretended for this very thing that you affirme viz. that those your reasons are reall and true is a part of the very question in hand and as much denyed by us as the infallibility of your Church and therefore by your own rule of proceeding à notioribus cannot be proper means to conclude that his Lordship erred to him that will farre more easily be brought to believe that your reasons are not reall then that his Lordship erred in this particular and that will as readily confesse he erres as that those reasons are reall Section 2 It appeared strange to me that you should begin with such a petitio principii untill by reading on I discerned that this one meane Sophisme hath run through most Paragraphs of your following Treatise which is a shrewd infirmity in a confutation to take that for a principle granted and so bestow no proofe upon it which is by you known to be denied by us and yet to conceive that this will be able to satisfy our other importunities Section 3 2dly You must observe that his Lordship had said only this that your Churches infallibility is offered to be proved by no better wayes than those by which we offer to prove she hath erred which is an undertaking of his Lordship and not a bare assertion and sure you cannot say he offers to prove it by reasons onely seeming for you as yet know not particularly what those reasons are any farther then that they are from the same heads by which you offer to prove the contrary Section 4 And Thirdly if the Arguments which he offers be only seeming on his side yet if you marke it they are so seeming to him and as long as they seem to him to conclude that the Church hath erred the very same arguments or those that are no more seeming cannot assure him that she is infallible for by your own confession every solid proofe must be ex notioribus i. e. not only by media which are more true but which are more known to him to whom this proofe is offered and if you marke that is it to which his Lordship's argument drives that the reasons by which you prove the infallibility of your Church are such as you confesse your selves to be fallible Marke not which you confesse to be false but fallible your confessing them fallible is enough to his Lordship's turne though they should have the luck to be true because the infallibility of your Church on which as on a foundation and principle you must build in many after difficulties had need be infallibly asserted and knowne or if it be but fallibly will it selfe be fallible no conclusion ascending higher then the premises have ascended and so though it were true yet not fit to commence a principle of all other truths Section 5 Now that these reasons or premises of yours are fallible and by you acknowledged to
second §. Chap. 3. The Enquirer is here much mistaken for we are not at all offended with Protestants for their alleadging Scriptures but for their doing of it after a way which is fallible and uncertaine in which case we say Scripture can be no foundation of faith Wherefore though they alleadge Scripture and we also yet doth it not follow thence that the Protestants disprove the infallibility by the selfe same media or meanes by which we endeavour to prove the same It is true they attempt to doe so but that they doe it is denied The Scripture when surely sensed or expounded is a different medium from the same Scripture sensed unsurely or expounded falsely Now he that takes an unsure way which no reason or discretion commends unto him and leaves the sure which Reason does perswade him to be such if that man chance to erre it is easie to understand why God should be more offended with him then with others that doe not so but hold a prudent and contrary course The summe is that holy Scripture after such time as it comes to be knowne certainly for Canonicall and shall be expounded according to the interpretation of the Church foundeth an argument strong and invincible but when otherwise one that is probable onely or ad hominem and this latter we say is your case and out of this give a reason why your resolves are temerarious and presumptuous and in fine such wherewith God may be displeased justly forasmuch as no man ought to goe about this worke unadvisedly or expose his salvation without all need to chance and uncertainty as if he meant to build upon the sand C. 3. Ans To the third Chap. Section 1 I answer that through this whole Chapter the same fallacy returnes againe of satisfying his Lordship's argument by a bare affirming but not proving a thing which is as much denied by his Lordship viz. that your alleadging of Scripture for the infallibility of your Church is by an infallible and certaine way but our alleadging of it for every part of our religion is by a fallible and uncertaine For though you in tearmes affirme onely the latter of these that which is against us yet in charity to you I shall suppose you imply the former or if you will say you doe not I shall then answer that the granting of what you say doth not vindicate your Infallibility but onely accuse us not cleare your selves or if that which you adde by way of explication may passe for a proofe of it viz. that Holy Scripture when it shall be expounded according to the interpretation of the Church foundeth an argument strong and invincible but when otherwise onely probable and ad hominem I answer that this being applyed to the matter in hand to you and us must if it signifie any thing have this importance that the places of Scripture which you bring for the Infallibility of your Church are expounded according to the interpretation of the Church but the places which we bring for the severall parts of our religion are not so expounded And then I answer that by the Church you may and I conceive ought to meane the Vniversall Church truly so called without your ordinary clogge or restriction and then all that we require of you is to make your affirmation good and produce the places of Scripture which that Vniversall Church hath so expounded to the asserting the Infallibility of your Church which till you doe produce 't is petitio principii againe and then we shall shew our selves ingenuous and though we might reply something which ad homines might be answer yet shall we part with all other advantages of defending our selves and in plaine ground yeild you the cause and contend no longer with you Section 2 But if you meane by the interpretation of the Church the interpretation of the Church in the notion wherein we enquire whether it be infallible viz. that society of Christians which have been govern'd by the Pope Though then we might deny that you have any such interpretation of Scripture for your infallibility and justifie the deniall for if you please we will undertake to shew that some eminent persons in the Church of Rome perhaps Popes themselves never interpreted any Scripture to the asserting the Infallibility of your Church and that many other differ among themselves what is that Church which they affirme from Scripture to be infallible and that will amount to the same also yet we shall content our selves with this other answer that the interpretation of that Church unlesse Saint Peter himselfe or some other acknowledg'd to be inspired joyne in it is not Infallible and for you to say it is and not to prove it is a petitio principii againe And for any other notion of the Church which shall be said so to interpret when you shall fasten on it we shall undertake to make good either that it doth not interpret the Scripture to the asserting the Infallibility of the Church or else that the Church in that notion is not infallible Section 3 As for the other part of your assertion which you principally insist upon in this Chapter that our case is contrary to yours i. e. that we found not our religion on Scripture expounded according to the interpretation of the Church we utterly disclaime it and for you to affirme it without proofe is petitio principii againe and to put it to a faire issue we make this offer that what ever proposition we affirme without shewing Scripture for it and that expounded according to the interpretation of the ancient Church we will presently forgo on your first instance and if you would pay us the like offer and your party make it good I doubt not but as turbulent a Sea as the state of Christendome is at this time the whole Church might quickly be at peace or at least the dissentient party not be considerable I remember a passage in Saint Hilary depredicating the Bishops of France as very happy men quòd aliam non cognovissent confessionem◠c. that they knew no other confession then that ancient and most simple which through all Churches from the Apostles age had been received And I am a little confident that that which first made and hath ever since fomented the breaches of that pretious body is the multiplying and imposing of new confessions and articles of beleife from the suggestion of private or lesse publique spirits and that hath made the body like Aristotle's insectills which for want of bloud runne out into a multitude of legs every such new article so multiplyed above the number of those which Scripture in the truly Catholique interpretation of it will authorize not onely as true but necessary to be so acknowledged being an effect of some want of bloud I meane charity in the Authors for though to teach any man any certaine truth be an act of charity yet to make an article i. e. to require every man to
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 onely 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 matter 's 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 't is 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 onely 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
9 Nay suppose they had evinced that some succession were infallible and so had proved to a learned man that the Roman Church must be this because none else pretends to it yet this can be no sufficient ground to the ignorant who cannot have any infallible foundation for their beliefe that the Church of Greece pretends not to the same and even to the Learned it is but an accidentall argument because if any other company had likewise claimed to be infallible it had overthrowne all so proved Section 10 Nay it is but an arbitrary Argument and depends upon the pleasure of the adversary for if any society of Christians would pretend to it the Church of Rome could make use of it no longer Section 11 The chiefest reason why they disallow of the Scripture for Judge is because when differences arise about the interpretation there is no way to end them and that it will not stand with the goodnesse of God to damne men for not following his will if he had assigned no infallible way how to find it I confesse this to be wonderfull true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let them excuse themselves that think otherwise Yet this will be no argument against him who believes that to all who follow their reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures and search for Tradition God will either give his grace for assistance to find the truth or his pardon if they misse it and then this supposed necessity of an infallible Guide with this supposed damnation for want of it fall together to the ground Section 12 If they command us to believe infallibly the contrary to this they are to prove it false by some infallible way for the conclusion must be of the same nature and not conclude more then the premisses set downe now such a way Scripture and Reason or infused faith cannot be for they use to object the fallibility of them to those that build their Religion upon them nor the Authority of the Church for that is part of the question and must be it selfe first proved and that by none of the former waies for the former reasons Section 13 The Popes infallibility can be no infallible ground of faith being it selfe no necessary part of the faith we can be no surer of any thing proved then we are of that which proves it and if he be fallible no part is the more infallible for his sideing with them So if the Church be divided I have no way to know which is the true Church but by searching which agrees with Scripture and Antiquity and so judging accordingly But this is not to submit my selfe to her opinions as my guide which they tell us is necessary Which course if they approve not of as a fit one for a Learned man they are in a worse case for the ignorant who can take no course at all nor is the better at all for this Guide the Church whilest two parts dispute which is it and that by arguments he understands not Section 14 If I granted the Pope or a Counsell by him called to be infallible yet I conceive their Decrees can be no sufficient ground by their owne axiomes of Divine faith For first say the most No Councell is valid not approved by the Pope for thus they overthrow that held at Ariminum a Pope chosen by Symony is ipso facto no Pope I can then have no certainer ground for the infallibility of those Decrees and consequently for my beleife of them then I have that the choice of him was neither directly nor indirectly Symoniacall which to be certain of is absolutely impossible Section 15 Secondly suppose him Pope and to have confirmed the Decrees yet that these are the Decrees of a Councell or that he hath confirmed them I can have but an uncontradicted attestation of many men for if another Councell should declare these to have been the Acts of a former Councell I should need againe some certaine way of knowing how this declaration is a Councells which is no ground say they of faith I am sure not so good and generall a one as that Tradition by which we prove that the Scripture is Scripture which yet they will not allow any to be certaine of but from them Section 16 Thirdly for the sence of their Decrees I can have no better expounder to follow then Reason which if though I mistake I shall not be damned for following why shall I for mistaking the sence of Scripture Or why am I a lesse fit interpreter of one then of the other where both seeme equally cleare And where they seem so I meane equally cleare and yet contradictory shall I not as soon believe Scripture which is without doubt of at least as great authority Section 17 But I doubt whether Councells be fit deciders of Questions for such they cannot be if they beget more and men have cause to be in greater doubts afterwards none of the former being diminished then they were at first Section 18 Now I conceive there arise so many out of this way that the Learned cannot end all nor the Ignorant know all As besides the forenamed considerations Who is to call them the Pope or Kings Who are to have voices in them Bishops only or Priests also Whether the Pope or Councell be Superiour and the last need the approbation of the first debated among themselves Whether any Countries not being called or not being there as the Abissines to great a part of Christianity and not resolvedly condemned by them for Heretiques were absent at the Councell of Trent make it not generall Whether if it be one not every where received as when the Bishops sent from some places have exceeded their Commission as in the Councell of Florence it be yet of necessity to be subscribed to Whether there were any surreption used or force and Whether those disanull the Acts Whether the most voyces are to be held the Act of the Councell or those of all are required as Canus saith All the Councell cannot erre the most may which never yet agreed or Whether two parts will serve as in the Tridentine Synode a considerable doubt because Nicephorus Callistus relateing the resolution of a Councell at Rome against that of Ariminum makes them give three reasons One That the Bishop of Rome was not present The second That most did not agree to it Thirdly That others thither gathered were displeased at their resolutions which proves that in their opinions if either most not present agree not to it or all present be not pleased with it a Councell hath no power to bind All these doubts I say perswade me that whatsoever brings with it so many new questions can be no fit ender of the old Section 19 In those things in which before a Generall Councell have defined it is lawfull to hold either way and damnable to doe so after I desire to know how it agreeth with the Charity of the Church to define
that have held contrary opinions to theirs now before they were defined or they knew them to be so why I say shall not the same implicit assent to whatsoever God would have assented to though I mistake what it is be sufficient When indeed to beleeve implicitly what God would have believed is to believe implicitly likewise what the Church teacheth if this doctrine be within the number of those which God commands to be believed Section 36 I have therefore the lesse doubt of this opinion that I shall have no harme for not beleeving the infallibilitie of the Church of Rome because of my being so farre from leaning to the contrary and so suffering my will to have power over my understanding that if God would leave it to me which Tenet should be true I would rather choose that that should then the contrary For they may well beleeve me that I take no pleasure in tumbling hard and unpleasant bookes and making my selfe giddy with disputing of obscure questions dazled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section 37 If I could believe there should alwayes be whom I might alwaies know a society of men whose opinions must be certainly true and who would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 labour to discusse define all arising doubts so as I might be excusably at ease and have no part left for me but that of obedience which must needs be a less difficult and so a more agreeable way then to endure endlesse volumes of commentaries the harsh Greeke of Evagrius and the as hard Latine of Ireneus and be pained by distinguishing betweene different senses and various lections and he would deserve not the lowest place in Bedlam that would preferre these studies before so many so much more pleasant that would rather imploy his understanding then submit it and if he could thinke God imposed upon him only the resisting temptations would by way of addition require from himselfe the resolving of doubts I say not that all these bookes are to be read by those who understand not the languages for them I conceive their seeking into Scripture may suffice But if I have by Gods grace skill to look into them I cannot better use it then in the search of his will where they say it is to be found that I might assent to them if there I finde reason for it or if I doe not they may have no excuse for not excusing me Section 38 For whereas they say it is pride makes us doubt of their infallibility I answer that their too much lazinesse and impatience of examining is the cause many of them doe not doubt Section 39 Next what pride is it never to assent before I find reason for it since they when they follow that Church as infallible pretend reason for it and will not say they would if they thought they found none and if they say we doe find reason but will not confesse it then pride hinders not our assent but our declaration of it which if it do in any one he is without question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by himselfe and it must be a very partiall advocate that would strive to acquit him Section 40 One much prevailing argument which they make is this that whosoever leave them fall into dissention betweene themselves whereas they in the meane while are alwayes at unity I answer first in this whereof the question is now they all consent Secondly when there is fire for them that disagree they need not bragge of their uniformity who consent Thirdly they have many differences among them as whether the Pope be infallible Whether God predeterminate every action Whether Election and Reprobation depend upon foresight Which seeme to me as great as any betweene their adversaries and in the latter the Jesuits have Ancienter and more generall Traditions on their side then the Church of Rome hath in any other question and as much ground from reason for the defence of Gods goodnesse as they can thinke they have for the necessity of an infallible guide yet these arguments must not make the Dominicans Heretiques and must us Section 41 If they say The Church hath not resolved it which signifies only that they are not agreed about it which is that we object I answer It ought to have done if conformity to the ancient Church be required in which all that ever I could heare of before Saint Austin who is very various I confesse in it delivered the contrary to the Dominicans as not doubtfull and to say it is lawfull for them to disagree whensoever they doe not agree is ridiculous for they cannot doe both at once about the same point Section 42 And if they say they meane by the Churches not having concluded it that a Councell hath not I answer that they condemne some without any and why not these Next I say that the opinion of the Diffused Church is of more force then the conclusion of a Representative which hath its authority from the other and therefore if all extant for foure hundred years teach any thing it is more Heresie to deny that then any Canon of a Councell Section 43 But may not howsoever any other company of People that would maintain themselves to be infallible say as much that all other Sects differ from one another and therefore should all agree with them Would those not think they ascribe all other mens dissentions and learned mens falling into divers Heresies to their not allowing their infalibility to their not assenting to their Decrees and not suffering them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit as teachers of those things that come in question and to have all others in that place of Disciples obedient to them which is that which Nilus a Greek Bishop professeth that because the Greeks would not allow the Romans was the only cause of seperation between them Section 44 They use much to object How could errours come into the Church without Opposition and mention both of that opposition in History I answer they might come in not at once but by degrees as in the growth of a child and the motion of a clock we see neither in the present but know there was a present when we find it past Next so many Authors being lost who can make it certaine to me that from none of those we should have had notice of this opposition if they had come to us Next I say there are two sorts of errours to hold a thing necessary that is unlawfull and false or that is but profitable and probable Of the second sort that errours should come in it appears not hard to me and especially in those ages where want of Printing made books and consequently learning not so common as now it is where the few that did study busied themselves in School-speculations only when the Authority of a man of chief note had a more generall influence then now it hath and so as Thucydodes saith the Plague did in his
beleive whatever we conceive to be truth is a great uncharitablenesse and a cause or occasion of more the adding to the necessary truths ordinarily being a forerunner of the abatement of the inventory of the necessary performances I meane of those which are indispensably required of us under Christ These last few lines I confesse to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I hoped might not be unwelcome to you If they be I am sorry you were troubled with it the seeing that there was nothing more in your Chapter which wanted answer gave me temptation and liberty for it To the third Section Chap. 4. The third Section is all true but concerns us nothing because amongst ours there is care enough taken for shewing which Church it is that is the true and infallible and on the other side much negligence and partiality in the enquirers after it in many of them at least though not in every one C. 4. Answ To the fourth Chap. Section 1 In your fourth Chapter though you are just in acknowledging the perfect truth of his Lordships third paragraph yet must you not be beleived on your bare word that you are not concern'd in it For I conceive it cleare that you are because that argument from Reason for such is that which is mentioned there as in the second paragraph the argument from Scripture and in the fourth the argument from Fathers or tradition which you use to prove the Infallibility of your Church viz. that it is therefore so made by God or that it is reasonable to thinke that God therefore so made it that all men may have some certaine Guide can never be able to conclude any thing unlesse it be made knowne by God as certainly or so offered by God to our knowledge that 't is our fault if we know it not both that there is such an infallible Church and which it is Now that God hath so made knowne these two it being impossible for reason to assure us any otherwise then by shewing us some sure word of prophecy I meane some revelation from God with sufficient evidence that it is revelation and this being not by you pretended to be shewed it availes little that you tell us that among yours there is care enough taken to shew which Church it is that is the true and infallible for if by shewing you meane demonstrating any way that it is so this you know we deny and saying it againe without proofe is petitio principii but if by shewing you meane the pointing us out that for the true and infallible of which you are a member we have little obligation or encouragement to beleive you say true being a witnesse in your owne cause I am sure no evidence that if you speake according to your judgement you are Infallible in that shewing or telling For if we had we must be supposed to have that evidence of your infallibility without because before your shewing and so to stand in little need of it To the fourth Section Chap. 5. The answer is that people illiterate may have evidence sufficient whereby to resolve and satisfie themselves without making any search into Histories Fathers or Scripture and therefore this Enquirers supposition is false and indeed it were a hard case if no man might be able to understand what he was to beleive without looking into all these and yet as hard as it is doth this Enquirer impose it upon all if not in expresse tearmes yet by the consequence of his doctrine As for our selves alone what need can we have for seeking out the true sence of Scripture and a conformity of doctrine with the Ancient more then other Christians have Surely according to this method of his all true religion whether in our Church or any other would be impossible to be learned by the illiterate and very hardly by any other men But what evidence can the illiterate have or rather from whence Out of the present face condition and visible practice of religion in the Church out of the antient monuments yet remaining that give in their depositions out of common fame and unsuspected testimonies out of the manifest perfections and excellencies both of the Church and Religion out of all which as from so many cleare signatures and characterismes of truth ariseth an evidence of credibility that this Church and this Religion are the true and whatsoever is once so creditable cannot possibly be false because for the verity of that the veracity of God doth stand engaged as Ric. Victorinus hath long since declared For it is a cleare case that all such things be true which God makes evidently credible and worthy of acceptance by the publique acts of his owne providence for otherwise that providence should publiquely entangle and deceive us by obliging us or at least publiquely and potently inducing and perswading us to believe that which were false and so by following that way which God hath signed out for us we should goe astray which thing can neither be done nor yet permitted to be done without imposture as all the antient Schoolemen doe observe By this meanes then are prudent publique motives able to make a certainty though not by their owne vertue yet at least by the vertue of the Supreame veracity which goes annexed with them Moreover this measure of evidence perceptible by the illiterate and weake though it be not so ample as others have or stand in need to have yet is it sufficient to sway their understanding and to call in the divine assistance for the supplying of whatsoever by reason of ignorance or incapacity is wanting in them Cum simplicibus est sermocinatio mea saith the Wiseman Therefore it is false and injurious to say as this Enquirer seemes to doe namely That such men as these doe assent to truth upon no better grounds then others doe to falshood The Enquirer's inference against the Church is this We thinke she hath erred therefore she may The Inference is good but the Antecedent is infirme and ought not to have beene made because he cannot have so great reason to judge she hath erred as on the contrary that she hath not in regard that it is farre more likely he himselfe erred in making that judgement of the Church then that the Church erred in making that judgement of the truth or that she hath contradicted her selfe it being farre more probable that a private man should be deceived then a whole Church Wherefore it is a great act of presumption and temerity in any single man though never so intelligent to judge the whole Church hath erred rather then himselfe The Enquirer saith that he tries the Church by her conformity with the Antients as she her selfe appoints But what then Doubtlesse she is not that way to be câ—nvinced forasmuch as every intelligent man will suppose that no particular man is able to examine that so well at she her selfe hath done before him and therefore may be pleased
hath influence on mens opinions but then still what ever their case be for believing the verity of your Church they can no way from thence be obliged to believe your infallibility Section 8 You confesse there may farther reply be made to you that these principles of yours are also question'd but take no notice upon what grounds of reason or Scripture they are question'd and so thinke you can deale with so unarm'd an adversary as you please by telling him they may be certaine and evident though they be question'd and perhaps I shall confesse to you that if they were onely question'd and no reason that were not by you easily answered brought to justifie such questioning it were sufficient which you say that questioning doth not disprove certainty and yet if every man's conscience be the Judge as you acknowledge then unlesse you can make it evident that that man's questioning is against conscience you will have no way to keepe it from being certaine and evident to him but when there be arguments produc'd to backe that questioning which you have no way to answer but by saying they may be certaine and evident for all that he that disputes with you will be excus'd to thinke he hath more reason to say and that you say must be judge that it may be otherwise To the 6. 7. Sections Chap. 7. No doubt there can be but God will reveale his truth to all such as seeke it with sincerity of heart and though both sides as the Enquirer objecteth may make use of this for an exterior allegation yet not as of interior helpe and preparation and therefore this sincerity is not a disposition unprofitable though it be a proofe inefficacious and thus much we grant willingly neither doe we challenge it as an argument of truth We grant him also that before such time as we can believe the Church we are to acquire sufficient principles for informing us which is she and also before we can believe upon her determinations we must have principles of knowing she is infallible and all this we make profession we doe de facto know Neither doe we take this Church to be a Proteus that is to say sometimes of one shape sometimes of another but a conspicuous body constantly adorned with the robes of truth and annexed to a Succession of Pastours legitimate from one age to another C. 7. Ans to Chap. 7. Section 1 Your answer to the sixth Section is by giving a distinction to tell us now both sides make use of the pretence of seeking truth sincerely and concludes that sincerity is not a disposition unprofitable though it be a proofe inefficacious which because you are willing to grant I will containe my selfe from springing any game or recreation for the Reader at this time of which he that were playsomely disposed would finde aboundant matter in the review of your distinction here applied and give you present payment for your favour by acknowledging that that which you grant is all that is begg'd from you viz. that God's promise of revealing of truth to those who seeke it sincerely is not at all an argument that they that pretend to the benefit of that promise must have reall title to it or consequently that they that have no other arguments to prove their Churches Infallibility but that they seeke truth sincerely and yet after that sincere search are of that opinion are to be heeded in their pretensions This justifies his Lordships sixth paragraph as fully as if you had subscribed it without your distinction Section 2 His Lordships seventh Paragraph consists of two things First a resuming of a part of his former argument which had beene onely mentioned but not inforc'd before that supposing the Church were proved to be infallible yet were not that sufficient to give any man certaine knowledge which were it Secondly a solid proofe of this affirmation by plaine reason because the granting the Infallibility of the Church did onely conclude that God would alwaies have a Church that should not erre but not that this was appropriated to any particular Church to such a Succession to the Bishop and Clergy of such a place c. Thirdly by a lively instance of the Greeke Church which though it were now in the right might hereafter erre and so the Greeke Church be now fallible and yet at the time that that erred another Church might arise the Champion of truth and so still the Church be infallible Section 3 To these two parts of the Paragraph your dispatch is short and annext to the nothing that was replied to the former Section to the first a liberall Grant of that which no man thankes you for that it is as necessary to know which that infallible Church is as that the Church is so but then saying and professing that you doe de facto know which is the Church and that she is infallible which beside that it is your old beloved petitio principii to say you know it offer no proof for it but your profession and a Latine word when the very thing that his Lordship was just a proving was that you neither did nor could know it comes not at all home to his Lordship's matter of shewing that the acknowledgement of the Infallibility of the Church doth not evict which is she For if 't were acknowledged that you did know it yet might it be by some other meanes and not by proving or confessing the Church to be infallible Section 4 As for his Lordship's proofe and instance added to his proposition 't was so despicable a thing that 't was not worth taking notice of but instead of any such thing you give us a declaration of your owne opinion that the Infallible Church was not a Proteus but a conspicuous body constantly adorned with truth c. which is againe the meanest begging of that which was just then denied and disprov'd and must so stand till you can annex reasons to your opinion and answers to his Lordships reasons To the 8. Section Chap. 8. We never goe about to prove our Church to be the true therefore because it holdeth with the truth or teacheth true doctrine as this Enquirer seemeth to suppose we doe but rather contrariwise because it is the true Church of Christ therefore we inferre it teacheth true doctrine but that it is the true Church we prove first of all and originally by reall revelations called in the Scripture Verba Signorum that is by signes ostensions or motives of credibility which motives for a great and sufficient part of them are the same by which we prove to Infidels the truth of Christianity it selfe For these same motives though when they are considered but in generall and as it were afarre off doe perswade Christianity but in generall without designing out in particular this or that Individuall Christianity yet neverthelesse the selfe-same being understood distinctly doe designe out a distinct and individuall Christianity and are applicable
to none else as for example the same species which shew me a man in generall afarre off the selfe-same afterwards when he comes nearer being distinctly perceived doe shew me that man is this individuall as Plato for example and no other For reall species doe not represent unto us Entia rationis or Individua vaga but determinate Individuals namely as often as those species are distinctly and compleatly understood As for the Circles into which both this Enquirer and Chillingworth would cast us and make us dance within them whether we will or no they are but Chymaericall conceptions of fidling and trifling dispositions which love to have toyes wherewith to entertaine themselves and in this point of resolution as we have declared it already have no semblance of reality C. 8. Ans to the 8. Chap. Section 1 His Lordship supposing in charity that you had attempted to prove the Roman Church to be the true Church by its agreement with Scripture and Antiquity which is in effect by holding the truth You plainely tell him he is mistaken in you It seemes you defie such meane waies of proving yours to be the Church as accordance with Scripture or Truth you must have it by some more noble way of demonstration and if you would stand to this peice of gallantry and never urge Scripture or Fathers to prove your opinions but content your selfe with your being the true Church to prove all after it As I confesse I should not charge on you that Circle which his Lordship doth in this particular supposing as he thought favourably to you that you had proved the truth of the Church by the truth and consonancy to Scriptures and Fathers of your doctrines so I should have two quarrels more against you in stead of that one composed First that you would disclaime Scriptures and fly to miracles for such are your reall revelations as you interpret them by the verba signorum in the Psalme the signes being there interpreted by the wonders that follow that you would fly to Gods extraordinary providence when I presume you conceive his ordinary would have served your turne for sure if at another time a man should have asked you is not your accordance with the Scriptures and Fathers a prime proofe that you are the true Church I doubt not but you would be so well natured as to confesse it and why now should the Devils infirmity the feare of a Circle make you so cowardly as not to dare to owne so popular an argument especially when your fire comes downe slowly or your bath Col the voice from Heaven which is the onely proper notion that I know of a reall revelation is not very audible to us that are afarre off nor if we were to be put upon the racke doe we know or can confesse at this day that we or any of our Fathers ever heard that 't was so ever revealed that the Roman Church is the true or the infallible Church And besides when you know we Protestants are a little hard of beliefe and dare not credit your owne report that you have such ostensions and revelations and signes when you neither produce witnesse nor tell us when or what they were but give us farther ground of jealousie by an odde phrase let fall by you that those reall revelations of yours are motives no more then of credibility when as true miracles acknowledged to be such are grounds of Faith and he is an Infidell that believes them not and to be but a motive of credibility is but a petty thing that every topicall argument will take place of probable being more then credible in the ordinary notion of the words Section 2 The second quarrell that your words have brought upon you is your telling us without proofe that it is so but onely by giving a similitude to shew it may be so and so in your phrase to be a motive of no more then credibility which in him that concludes it is so is petitio principii againe that the same motives you use to prove the truth of Christianity against Infidels will prove yours to be the true Church which being confidently said we are so vile in your eies as not to be vouchsafed so much as the mention what they are unlesse by your former words we conclude you meane miracles much lesse any evidence concerning them And yet by the way the miracles by which we prove the truth of Christianity to Infidels must be those which we meet with in Scripture and not those other in your Legends and upon a strict survey and recollecting of all them and so comming as neare to them as can be I must professe I cannot see your Churches being the true Church in those miracles neare so clearly and distinctly as I can see the man afarre off to be one of my acquaintance when he comes neare me which you undertooke I should and made me try and therefore I hope will recompence me for the losse of my labour by giving me your reasons next time for your assertion that I may try againe whether your proofes are more lucky then your experiments Section 3 But then I cannot see why you should be scurrilous upon both his Lordship and Master Chillingworth for thinking you were in danger of the Circle in which sure Baron had deprehended your Friend Turnbull and in which you had beene engaged infallibly if you had but gone about to prove your Church the true Church by the truth or consonancy to Scriptures and Fathers of your opinions which way of proving me thinkes 't is possible you may stand in need of before you come to the end of your answer In the meane as the calling downe Hercules upon the Stage was wont to be a Character of a Tragicke Poet i. e. of a fabulous wonderfull undertaker Cum fabulae exitum explicare non potuerit so to fetch us in miracles and ostensions to prove that divine truth that you confesse must not be proved by the Scripture will passe for a peice of Poetry I feare instead of a motive of credibility and those that are chearfully disposed will be apt to tell you that you were faine to conjure hard and doe or pretend miracles or else you had beene enclosed in that Circle To the 9. and 10. Sections Chap. 9. To these I answer in a word that neither the Greeke nor any other Church can pretend the Primacy or Principall succession of Pastours that is to say from the President of the Apostle Saint Peter none I say besides Rome can pretend this and without this one noâ—e can be authenticall or sufficient to prove a Church or a succession of Pastours Ecclesiasticall and so the Enquirers starting-hole in the Greeke Church into which he alwaies makes his retreat is prevented and shut up against him By this also is the 10. Section answered for whatsoever Churches claime unto succession shall be alleadged it can no way evacuate that of Rome as hath before beene shewed
lesse prove that he had so is there not added by you any other or indeed any tittle of answer to what is brought by his Lordship out of Irenaeus Section 15 His Lordship saith also in this Paragraph that they that were after against the Millenaries never quoted any for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived 250 yeares after Christ this indeed sounds somewhat toward concluding that that was the doctrine of the first age not opposed by any prime Doctor and might be worth your pains in answering too but you endeavour not that neither but would make it improbable that if it were so generall a doctrine Dionysius should dare to oppose it This is very ill arguing against a matter of fact to aske how could or durst he there is nothing done so many yeares since but some probability may by a witty man be brought against it I confesse I acknowledge my opinion that there were in that age men otherwise minded as out of Justin it appeared and his Lordship saith nothing to the contrary out of any other evidences no more then we made it cleare he did out of Justin all that he saith is that Papias had gotten the Prime Doctours into the beleife of it and that no one of those two first ages opposed it that is wrote or interposed in any considerable manner against it Section 16 And if I were apt to change my opinion in this matter on easy tearmes I should goe neare to doe it upon the view of your proofe of the contrary so exceeding feeble and weake is it For supposing all the eminent men for those ages had beene for it upon the strength of some places of Scripture and Papias his report from Saint John it would not yet be very difficult for a learned man Dionysius Alexandrinus when no act of Councell had interposed or bound up that doctrine in the degree that he thought that those places of Scripture were misunderstood and that Papias had abused them in the same degree I say to declare his opinion and the grounds of it and never force or straine his owne conscience or incurre the blame of heresy by so doing Section 17 For what thinke you of another opinion that Irenaeus tooke up just upon the same tearmes of Christs being betwixt 40 and 50 yeares old for which he vouched Scripture as he did for tother and the authority of omnes seniores larger then Presbytery in tother testantur qui in Asia apud Johannem discipulum Domini convenerunt id ipsum tradidisse eis Johannem c. All the Elders witnesse it that were in Asia with John that he delivered it to them qui alios Apostolos viderunt haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt testantur de ejusmodi relatione they that saw the other Apostles heard the same of them and beare witnesse of such a relation This is as high an expression of Apostolicall Tradition if we will beleive Irenaeus as universally testified to be so as any could be thought to be And yet sure you would not thinke it a sinne against Conscience or obnoxious to the censure of Heresy for any man of meaner parts and authority then Dionysius Alexandrinus to have opposed this phansy and profest his opinion to the contrary you must know that there was not that perfect yoke of tyranny gone out upon all mens necks as now your infallible Church doth glory of that no man must oppose any the meanest assertion or opinion of the Doctours of the Church though not at all defied but presently he must be an Hereticke at least divinity was not turn'd into such an art that it must receive no grouth or sensible change but all goe on in the same tracke beleive nor understand no more in Scripture then the present Church understands and so in effect have all their skill in tongues and fathers and even their judicative faculty as so many unprofitable burthens upon them that must not be made use of to the discovery of an errour to the helping of the world to more light reforming any thing that is amisse in it Section 18 This which is one of the greatest moderne crimes in Christianity was not so ancient as those purer daies wherein life was as censurable as now false opinions I meane such as though supposed false are yet perfectly extrinsecall to the anology of faith wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impiety and piety divided the Church into erroneous and true members and teaching of opinions not before embraced so it were not with pride or judging of others could be well enough endured And so according to the old rule of distingue tempora doe but consider how distant those times are from these amongst you on one side and your opposite extreame that runne from you so farre till they meet you againe at the Antipodes on the other and you will give Dionysius Alexandrinus leave to dare oppose that doctrine of the Chiliasts though it had more generally then it did prevailed amongst them Section 19 Another argument you have against the generall reception of that doctrine that 't is probable Saint Dionysius the Areopagite opposed it I wonder one that asserts an infallible Church should deale so mightily in probabilities just as if a profound Geometer should use but Topicall arguments Now to see how you prove this probability 'T is proved by the workes now extant bearing his name What workes those are and how improbable to be his I could give you a large account by some hints which I remember Photius in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 helpt me to but I shall satisfie my selfe onely with answering your argument out of Philoponus briefely thus That in the places by you cited he mentions onely an Epistle of Dionysius to Polycarpus in which you know or may know there is no word of the Chiliasts and then that will be a very aliene testimony and very unable to countenance the bulke of those bookes under Dionysius his name which may all be spurious and in them the testimonies against the Chiliasts though that letter should be canonicall and now see I pray what your probability is come to Section 20 For your discourse about the Quartodecimani I will not divine how it came in here but am sure it hath no right to be taken notice of by me his Lordship having not said one word of them nor of any friend of theirs whose interests lye common with them and therefore shall I returne no word to that part of your discourse till you shew how I am obliged to it Section 21 What his Lordship saith out of Salvian you confesse to be true but see not what it makes against Tradition If you be not modest in concealing your knowlekge in this matter but really ignorant I shall then tell you His Lordship proves by this that the Church that suffers Salvian to be a member of it while he refuses to passe sentence of condemnation upon
please to give over this course of denying conclusions and not considering premises I will soone obey your advise and resolve to leave off contending Ibid. B. Our Authours have proved all that we in defending doe affirme and if the Enquirer had impugned their proofes we then would have tryed to defend wherefore that which we affirme and declare doth not rest upon a bare affirmation although I prove them not in this place as being here a meere Defendant and not an Arguer Answ This annotation being upon the same occasion and in substance the same with the former is already answered Onely I shall adde that if you affirme ought which your Authours in other Bookes bring proofe for this will not excuse you from a necessity of answering his Lordships arguments against that conclusion of your Authors or if it doe you must not passe for a Defendant His part it is to ward the Adversaries blowes and if he make a thrust himselfe he then turnes Offendent or Arguer and when he doth so he must take care his weapon have some edge I meane his affirmations some proofes annext or else they will wound no body As for the Enquirer i. e. his Lordship it was not his present taske to descend to an enumeration and impugning of all your Authours arguments though yet those which he could thinke of as your chiefe he hath insisted on and were he alive he would from your dealing here have little encouragement to seek out for others his intention was to frame arguments against your conclusion and if you had denied or answered them you needed not to have troubled your self to affirme any thing or if out of designe or ex abundanti you will you must be content to be call'd upon to prove it For call your selfe what you please you must be an Arguer when you so affirme Ibid. C. Yes sure by consequence it is Answ I am forced to aske your pardon if I know not certainly to what part of my discourse this Annotation belongs whether to the end of one period or the beginning of the other Yet it falls out luckily that which soever it is it is againe the denying the conclusion which you are very subject to for the end of the former period is the mention of a conclusion deduced from grounds immediately before specified And the beginning of the second period is a negation of mine with proofe immediately following it and before I come to the proofe For though c. you presently interpose your Yes sure by consequence it is but will not consider me so much as after my example to give the least proofe for what you say or take notice of that proof of mine C. 7. Answ to C. 7. A. I make no distinction here but suppose it made and also manifest Answ I only said you had given a distinction not made it and that supposed it made also and I then conteined my selfe from taking any exceptions to it onely I told you the applying of it to that place would have afforded some game if I had been so sportingly disposed And to that I pray consider how pertinent your Annotation hath proved I will not be provoked to adde more Ibid. B. Your part was to have confuted what I say and not so often and to no purpose repeat this Petitio Principii Answ If it be a sufficient confutation of any Sophister to finde out and tell him of his sophisme which ipso facto is worth nothing when 't is discovered as the title of Aristotles Booke of Elenchs supposes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being defined by Varinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a discovery of that which was hid and 't is manifest by comparing 1 Cor. 14.24 with v. 25. Eph. 5.13 then have I obeyed you in confuting what you say though I take not your advice for the way of it And indeed if it should be in any Duellers power to prescribe to his Adversary when he is in his danger that he shall not wound him this way but some other or if it were regular for you to forbid me to tell you of a Petitio principii when you are clearly guilty of it and when to evidence that against you is not onely the shortest but most logicall most expedite and most clear way of redargution your Adversary might be weary of playing out the prize though he were sure to conquer in it I shewed you that an Answerer might so carry the matter as to be guilty of Petitio principii and 't was but passion in you to check or tell me 't was to no purpose that I said you were so C. 8. Answ to C. 8. A. We have done it and doe it continually when occasion requires Answ I beseech you read over those lines of mine to which your Annotation is affixt and speak your conscience whether you think 't was fitly noted If you can be so partiall to your own creature I will not contend with you but onely tell you that as I conceive it impertinent so I see apparently that 't is contrary to that other speech of yours which within three lines I there recited from you For if you doe it continually i. e. prove the Roman Church to be the true by its agreement with Scripture c. as here your Annotation saith you doe how could you say his Lordship was mistaken in supposing you did so I wish you had first read out to the end of the period and then I suppose you would have fitted your Annotation to it the better Ibid. B. I doe not disclaime Scripture though I doe not hold it to be the first or formost proof either of the Church or of Christian Religion and would know how you your selfe would convert an Infidell or Atheist by Scripture beginning with that proof Answ You must againe remember what my last Answer mentions that in that place when his Lordship had supposed you to prove the Roman Church to be the true Church by its agreement with Scriptures and antiquity which is in effect by holding the truth you plainly tell him he is mistaken in you On this ground I must conclude and thinke it proved by that confession that you doe disclaime Scripture as farre as I said you did i. e. not to all purposes but to that of which the discourse was viz to prove your Church to be the true Church And 't is not enough to say that you doe not hold it to be the first or formost proofe c. For if it be used by you as any proofe at all that will also be a very probable meanes besides that it makes it evident that his Lordship was not mistaken in supposing it so to bring you into the circle which you were so carefull to avoid You see I am cleare from your Animadversion and so have no occasion to enter into that new controversie whether the Scripture be the formost proof either of the Church or of the Christian Religion though sure it may be
one without being the other it may be the formost proofe of evidencing which is the true Church to them that are supposed Believers and none else will be fit for that enquiry yet not be the first meanes to prove Christian Religion to Unbelievers And yet I shall not be over-coy nor make much scruple to tell you my opinion of this also that I would not begin with an Infidel with that proofe to either purpose as supposing he did believe it or that it would of its owne accord attract his beliefe infallibly but for Christianity it selfe I should first labour to win somewhat upon his affections by converse and by shewing him the excellency of the Christian precepts and the power of them in my life bring him to thinke my discourse worth heeding then when I had gotten that advantage I would relate the rem gestam of Christianity where all the acts and miracles and passages of Christs life would come in then if he doubted of the truth of it tell him the authority by which it comes downe to us in a continued undistributed undenied tradition from those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oculate Witnesses of Christ and the whole matter and to as good an advantage as I could compound the severall motives of Faith together which if you please you may view at leisure in Grotius de verit Chr. Rel. and when by these meanes I had converted him I should then by Scripture and antiquity which would now be of some authority with him and not by miracles attempt to manifest to him which were the true Church To which end it may be worth your remembring that your Apostle of the Indies Xaverius thought fit for their use to compile a double Gospel one of Christ another of S. Peter by the authority of one of them to teach them Christianity of the other the supremacy and infallibility of S. Peters chaire But I shall not give my self liberty to enlarge on this Ib. C. I deliver the method and how it may be I also affirme or declare that it is I was not in this place to prove but to defend against the Enquirers arguments and no other and therefore those two quarrels needed not Answ The designe of most of your Notes is to save your selfe from the necessity of proving any thing that you affirme whereas it might be but an act of a little supererogating charity if you would sometimes prove your assertions even when by strict law you were not bound to it But Sir I will not require your almes but onely your justice and though that will not oblige you to prove when you onely defend i. e. when you onely deny the premises of his Lordships arguments c. or when you are strictly an Answerer yet when instead of that you confront any affirmation of yours to his Lordships conclusion as here you doe and in all places when we charge petitio principii upon you I must then be pardoned to put you in mind of your duty which is that of Arguers then and not of Respondents either to prove what you so say or not to think you have convinced any man They that cannot answer one argument produced against them may yet think fit to make use of some argument for them hoping that may prove as convincing on their sides as that against them and so by divertisement put off the heat of the impression and this you have been proved to be often guilty of and 't will satisfie no man to say that you neither are nor because Defendant can be guilty of so doing Ibid. D. Sure he hath not for Turnbull hath vindicated himselfe Answ If every reply were a Vindication then you may have affirmed truth and then these few marginall notes of yours such as they are would be your Vindication also and then I suppose you will give your free consent that they be printed But the task would be too long to disprove what you have now said for it would require the examination of all those writings betwixt the two Combatants and when that were done you would think perhaps that Turnbull were vindicated and I that he were not I shall onely tell you that you had beene so concluded in a circle infallibly if you had asserted that method which his Lordship there disproves which is enough to vindicate his Lordship against those that doe assert that method as sure some Romanists doe and against them he there argues and not against you or any in that place which renounce that method Ibid. E. If our Church be the true Church it must be proved firstly as Christianity is first proved that is to say by motives of credibility and supernaturall ostensions or acts not of naturall and ordinary but supernaturall and extraordinary providence and he that will not prove Christianity by this way will not prove it at all After this done Scriptures and Fathers doe come but not before and this way is not new but the way of the Antients Answ I have here no necessity of re-examining of the means of proving Christianity to an Infidell it will suffice to remember that those meanes which are necessary to that may be unnecessary to prove which is the true Church because now to him that is converted as he that will judge betwixt true and hereticall is supposed to be other meanes may suffiently supply the place such are Scripture and Antiquity which to an Heathen are of no authority but to a Christian or suppositâ fide are and being so as I conceive you will not think fit to deny may well be made the umpire betwixt us who are I hope allowed to be Christians still by the consent of parties or if we are not our pretensions to miracles wil hardly gain any credit with them that have that prejudice against us Mean while I must remember you that motives of credibility as you call them are but weake premises to induce a conclusion of such weight as the choice of religion is I will tell you what I should have said instead of it Motives of excessive probability of the same or greater force then those on which I ground and build the most considerable actions of my life and which as formerly I told you if I will dis-believe I have as good reason to mistrust the wholesomenesse of every dish of meat I taste on which 't is physically possible may poison me but yet none but Hypocondriackes think it will or phansie it so strongly as to abstâ—ine the security of any title of estate I purchase or possesse the truth of any matter of fact in the most acknowledged history or tradition among men that I daily talk of All which though they produce not nor are apta nata to doe so a science or infallible certainty cui non potest subesse falsum yet doe they or are very sufficient to doe so a Faith or fiduciall assent cui non subest dubium of which I doubt no more
by some collateral consideration Section 26 Next to this certaine and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome which averseth me from it comes their putting all to death or at least paines that are so where they have power which is an effect though not a necessary one of the first opinion and that averseth me yet more for I doe not believe all to be damned whom they damne but I conceive all to be killed whom they kill I am sure if you look upon Constantine's Epistle written to perswade concord upon the first disagreement between Alexander Arrius you will find that he thought and if the Bishops of his time had at first thought otherwise he would have been sure better informed that neither side deserved either death or damnation and yet sure this question was as great as ever rose since For having spoken of the opinions as things so indifferent that the Reader might almost think they had been fallen out at Spurn-point or Ketle-pins he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that which is necessary is one thing that all agree and keep the same faith about divine providence I am sure in the same Author Moses a man praised by him refusing to be made Bishop by Lucius because he was an Arrian and he answering That he did ill to refuse it before he knew what his faith was Answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The banishing of Bishops shews ENOUGH your faith So that it is plaine he thought punishing for opinions to be a marke which might serve him to know false opinions by Section 27 I believe throughout Antiquity you will find no putting any to death unlesse it be such as begin to kill first as the Circumcollians or such like I am sure Christian Religions chief glory being that it increased by being persecuted and having that advantage of the Mahumetan which came in by force me thinks especially since Synesius hath told us and reason told men so before Synesius that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every thing is destroyed by the contrary to what setled and composed it It should be to take ill care of Christianity to seek to hold it up by Turkish meanes at least it must breed doubts that if the Religion had alwaies remained the same it would not be defended by waies so contrary to those by which it was propagated Section 28 I desire recrimination may not be used for though it be true that Calvin hath done it and the Church of England a little which is a little too much for Negare manifesta non audeo excusare immodica non possum yet She confessing She may erre is not so chargeable with any fault as those which pretend they cannot and so will be sure never to mend it and besides I will be bound to defend no more than I have undertaken which is to give reasons why the Church of Rome is fallible Section 29 I confesse this opinion of damning so many and this custome of burning so many this breeding up those who know nothing else in any point of Religion yet to be in readiness to crie To the fire with him and To Hell with him as Polybius saith in a certaine furious Faction of an Army of severall Nations and consequently languages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All of them understood onely this word Throw at him this I say in my opinion was it chiefly which made so many so suddenly leave the Church of Rome that indeed to borrow the Authours phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They needed not perswasion to doe it but onely newes that others had begun For as this alone if believed makes all the rest be so too so one thing alone mis-liked overthrowes also all the rest Section 30 If it were granted that because it agrees not with the Goodnesse of God to let men want an infallible Guide therefore there must be one and that the Church of Rome were that one yet if that teach any thing to my understanding contrary to Gods Goodnesse I am not to receive her doctrine for the same cause for which they would have me receive it it being as good an argument This Guide teaches things contrary to Gods goodnesse therefore is not appointed by God as to say It is agreeable to his goodnesse there should be a Guide therefore there is one And sure it is lawfull to examine particular doctrines whether they agree with that principle which is their foundation and to that me thinks to damne him that neither with negligence nor prejudication searcheth what is Gods will though he misse of it is as contrary as the first can be supposed Section 31 I would know whether he that never heard of the Church of Rome shall yet be damned for not believing her infallible I have so good an opinion of them as to assure my self they will answer he shall not I will then aske whether he that hath searched what Religions they are and finds hers to be one and her infallibility to be part of it if his reason will not assent to that shall he be damned for being inquisitive after truth for he hath committed no other fault greater then the other and Whether such an ignorance I mean after impartiall search be not of all other the most invincible Section 32 Nay grant the Church to be infallible yet me thinks he that denies it and imployes his reason to seeke if it be true should be in as good case as he that believes it and searcheth not at all the truth of the proposition he receives for I cannot see why he should be saved because by reason of his parents beliefe or the Religion of the Country or some such accident the truth was offered to his understanding when had the contrary been offered he would have received that and the other damned that beleeves falshood upon as good ground as the other doth truth unlesse the Church be like a Conjurers circle that will keep a man from the Devill though he came into it by chance Section 33 They grant that no man is an Heretique that believes not his Heresie obstinately and if he be no Heretique he may sure be saved It is not then certain damnation for any man to deny the infallibility of the Roman Church but for him onely that denies it obstinately and then I am safe for I am sure I doe not Section 34 Neither can they say I shall be damned for Schisme though not for Heresie for he is as well no Schismatique though in Schisme that is willing to joyne in communion with the true Church when it appeares to be so to him as he is no Heretique though he hold Hereticall opinions that holds them not obstinately that is as I suppose with a desire to be informed if he be in the wrong Section 35 Why if it be not necessary alwayes to believe the truth so one believe in generall what the Church would have believed for so they excuse great men
of an infirme not a malicious mistaker And the first thing we have to view is that which is entituled A note upon the title of the Adversarie's C. 1. We against whom this enquirer writes or rather to whom he propounds his difficulties with a pretending desire of procuring a satisfaction are defenders of the Catholique Churches Infabillity which Churches chief Pastour or Metropolitan though he be particular Bishop of Rome as of some one place or other he must be yet neverthelesse from that one portion of it is not the whole and universall Church aptly to be stiled the Church of Rome as in the Enquirers title it is called no more then the Church of England can be rightly termed the Church of Canterbury or the Protestants of England the Canterburians as the Scotch Puritans have called them onely because the chief Bishop and Primate of the whole Kingdome hath his seat at Canterbury By the self same reason then cannot we justly be called Romanists as it hath pleased some Protestants to entitle us The reason of this assertion is That Rome and Canterbury are but small and onely materiall portions of either Church and therefore no way sufficient to give a denomination to the whole As then the Church of England is wrongfully called the Church of Canterbury so in like manner is the Church Catholique wrongfully stiled the Church of Rome or as such controverted to be fallible or infallible forasmuch as this perfection of being infallible is not claimed by her as she is Church of Rome but as she is the Catholique and according to the appointment of Christ governed by S. Peter and his successours For this cause we have altered the title and stated the question in tearmes more proper and formall enquiring not Whether the Roman Church but whether the Catholique be infallible and this ought to be the title But before we enter upon the examination of particular difficulties the Reader may please to know that this same Enquiry was written by the Author diverse yeares agoe in his Catholique Mothers life time and was by her mediation forthwith answered at large and the answer sent unto the Enquirer fairly bound up in whose hands though it rested long yet had it never any reply made unto it though it was sometime threatned it should At that very time Chillingworths Booke began to be in moulding and it may be that same new labour diverted the Enquirer and altered his designe Now at length in a time most unseasonable by the frivolous officiousnesse of I know not whom these old papers are forced to see the light and to leave their answer behind them After so meane and creeping a fashion doe they appeare now unto the world But although no notice hath been taken of any answer made already or of giving licence for any other to be made hereafter or if made to be published in print and have the advantage to be dispersed abroad in many copies yet are we not by this discouraged from composing one for though for want of the Printers helpe it shall lye concealed and in much restraint yea and be in danger to perish as the other did before it yet may this small labour fall at least into some few hands and remove out of their way such dangerous stumbling blockes as have beene cast into it by this Enquirer who by his casting of doubts about the method of resolving faith hath thereby amongst all those who are not much versed therein endangered the stability and safety of the whole fabrique not of Catholique Religion onely but of Christian in Generall As for the Papers themselves and their particular contents they in a word are Chillingworths Booke in little and an Embryo of his large volume growne up after made bigge and bolstered out with many new materials borrowed from Baron the Scotch Minister and that impious author Volkelius the veines of whose poisonous doctrines and discourses are observed to runne branching throughout all Chillingworths worke Wherefore this small collection containing the substance of the other larger booke the confutation of this Enquirers allegations cannot but in substance conteine a confutation of all Chillingworths delated errors and sophistications wherewith so many soules have beene perverted or brought into great troubles and perplexities C. 1. Answer to C. 1. To the exceptions made against the title of the Lord Viscount Falklands discourse I answer by saying these few things Section 1 First that it is no news to heare of the Catholique Roman Church it hath frequently beene used and avowed by your owne writers and as I conceive is by your selfe acknowledged when you say the perfection of being infallible it not claimed by her i. e. the Church Catholique as she is the Church of Rome but as she is the Catholique which words by the rules of discourse must suppose you to thinke the Catholique Church to be capable of a double appellation Roman and Catholique though the perfection there spoken of belong to it onely under the second notion And beside you say in another place that the Roman Church is the Catholique whence it will follow that the Catholique is the Roman And if this be not propriety of speech his Lordship is not to be blamed for it but you whose dialect he is faine to use Section 2 This then being presumed to be granted by your writers and as I conceive also by you that the Roman Church is the Catholique Church or that the Roman and Catholique are two names for the same Church it will certainly follow that he that affirmes the Catholique Church to be infallible must affirme the Roman Church to be so too though not quatenus Roman For any particular man being affirmed to be a Christian whatsoever will be true to be said of this Christian will be true to be said of this man by the rule of quicquid praedicatur de praedicato praedicatur de subjecto if this Christian have a promise made a priviledge instated on him this man hath so also and if any that yeilded the former shall deny the latter it will never be sufficient ground or authority for such denying to affirme that it was made to him as a Christian and not as a man for the whole man being a Christian and not onely some part of him even that which belongs to him onely for Christianities sake doth as truly belong to him as that which his humanity gives him title to Section 3 Or 2â—y. If you have sprang a subtlety and by helpe of that meane to disclaime the expression of other your friends and therefore will not allow the Roman Church to be in propriety of speech the Catholique Church and yet will agree with them in all but in the expression truly you have revealed no great mystery to the world And as long as you define as you do the Catholique Church as it is the subject of the pretended Infallibility to be that which is governed by Saint Peter and his Successours we
that meane no more by the Roman Church then that which is so governed shall assoone beleive the Roman Church to be infallible as the Catholique under your notion of it Section 4 The short of it is we shall never agree upon any thing till the equivocall tearmes be explicated and one single sence of this as of all other phrases agreed on betwixt both parties Tell us then plainly that by the Catholique Church you meane the Vniversall all the world over without any kind of restriction and not that onely which is governed by the Pope of Rome which is a great restriction of the word Catholique and must be not onely affirmed but proved by you to be none And then I shall thus farre consent with you Section 5 First that the Vniversall Church is in fundamentals infallible not from any thing inherent in it selfe but by a prerogative acquired i. e. by the promise of Christ that his spirit shall leade them into all truth and that he will be with them to the end of the world and the like but then this Infallibility must signifie no more or be no farther extended then that Christ doth and will so defend his Church that there shall be for ever till the end of the world a Church Christian on the Earth i. e. that the whole Church shall not at once make an universall defection erre from the foundation or doe any thing by which there shall cease to be a Church on earth Section 6 But then 2dly I say that this very Vniversall Church though it be in the sense infallible in fundamentals is not yet a rule or Canon or guide or Judge infallible even in fundamentals visible it is infallible it is but 't is not a visible judge or rule infallible And the reason of this assertion is this that its Infallibility explained as we have explain'd it is all that can be certainly inferred from Christ's words and that belongs not at all to judicature and so any other Infallibility that shall be pretended to belong to judicature must be inferred from some other tenure or else it will not be inferred Section 7 If you cannot be thus liberall to us and tell us that by Catholique in this question you meane that Catholique without restriction Tell us then Secondly that you meane a representation of that Catholique i. e. a Councell Generall Oecumenicall and then I shall acknowledge many priviledges to belong to that An humble though not an absolute obedience and in a word that nothing is to be preferred before it but the Word of God or the Church truly Vniversall Yet after all this that it is not infallible or inerrable I have the judgement of Panormitan and shall adde his reason also to back it Because saith he the Generall Councell is not truly but onely by representation the Vniversall Church and supposing such a Councell to erre it would not yet follow that the Vniversall Church or multitude of all Christians doe erre because 't is possible that some out of the Councell doe not erre yea and in the Councell too though a major part overcome the better In this I have the concurrence of Occam dial p. 3. tr 1. l. 3. c. 5. Cardin. Cameracensis c. 1. Waldensis Doctrin fid l. 2. artic 3. c. 26. quest vesp arg 3. ad lit O. Antoninus to 1. de sacram l. 2. c. 19. Card. Cusanus in summarum par 3. tit 23. de concil general c. 2. sect 6. l. 2. Concord Cathol c. 4. Et Nic. de Clemangis Collat. 2. p. 64 73. with this farther confirmation of it from the opinion of the Ancient Fathers evidenced by their practice In that saith he it was solemnly accustomed by them at the beginning of such a Councell by fasting and praying to implore the assistance of the spirit which had beene a piece of uselesse diligence if they had been before assured that they could not be deceived or faile in those things for which they were assembled Which argument if it doe not infallibly induce the conclusion to those that pray for those things which they are sure of yet is it an evidence that they that use it are of the opinion which they inferre by it and will be of force to those that from the mention of some of the Ancients praying for the dead conclude them to be in a mutable state as I conceive some of your freinds are wont to doe To this assertion of ours I might also cite the Concordance of the Jesuits generally who that they may fasten all Infallibility in the Pope alone attribute nothing at all to a Councell but this that the errour of a Councell cannot be confirmed by the Pope which is in effect no more then that Councells begin to be infallible when the Pope confirmes them i. e. when the Councell is at an end which kind of Infallibility they will afford I presume to every Heretique and to me while I thus write that my errour cannot be confirmed by the Pope unlesse they will be so bountifull to adde also that such a Councell cannot erre if it follow the instructions of the Pope which will also be acknowledged true of any the meanest Lutheran or Calvinist as well as of that Councell Section 8 If neither of these two be it you meane then be ingenuous and tell us you either mean the Pope of Rome as the Jesuits doe or else that you meane those parts of the Catholique that are governed by him and then as we shall tell you that it is the very thing which we learn't from you to meane by the Roman Church so you that affirme that to be the notion of the Catholique Church must acknowledge to affirme the same thing to be Infallible which we say you doe affirme when we propose the Question of the Roman Churches Infallibility and in this there is no matter of deceit or difficulty but that that Church under the government of the Pope which we affirme to be fallible even in the highest degree fallible in fundamentals you undertake and contest to be infallible 'T is true this we call the Roman Church conceiving it to be your Dialect and if you say it is not we will consent to you and in obedience to your example call it so no more on condition you will be but as reasonable and give it some other title whether that of the Westerne Church which were a good large Province and yet of that Saint Basil complaines in no lower stile then this That they neither know nor endure the unity of Faith or any other title besides that of the Catholique Church which we are sure cannot properly be allow'd it unlesse it appear First that all Christians ought to be govern'd by the Bishop of Rome and Secondly that all they which are not so governed are no longer members of the Catholique Church and if you affirme both these we professe to deny them and then that must be the
be so his Lordship was not content to affirme and so is himselfe farre enough from giving you example of begging the question but proves it by this argument because with you nothing is not fallible but the Church This may be dissolved into an hypotheticall syllogisme whereof you must deny one proposition or else the conclusion is forfeited If with you the Church be the only infallible then with you any other reasons by which you prove the infallibility of the Church are not infallible but with you the Church is the only infallible therefore with you any other reasons by which you prove the infallibility of the Church are not infallible Now if you look over your answer againe you shall find that your only exception commeth not home to any part of this syllogisme for you doe not so much as say that any thing is infallible but the Church Or if now you will see your want and make additions to your answer then say distinctly is any other thing beside the Church infallible or no If it be let it be named if it be not the conclusion is granted us And till this addition be thus made i. e. for this present answer of yours 't is I conceive manifest that you have said no syllable to the prime part of his Lordship's first Section Section 6 As for your instances of Phylosophy and Law suites they can prove nothing against his Lordship unlesse you can name some sect of Phylosophy that hath not only truth but infallibility and tell us which it is and prove that by arguments which are confest to be infallible till you have done that your instance is not pertinent and if ever you shall doe it 't will not be concluding against us unlesse you produce the like arguments for the infallibility of your Church against us which must be some other then are yet proposed Section 7 As for Lawsuits that they are determined to one side by the Judge doth not prove that that Judge is infallible which is the only matter of debate and if the contenders are bound to stand to his award it is because the Law and supreme Magistrate have commanded them to doe so and because this is evident and infallible that they have done so by the commission which the Judge hath from them And when the like is produced for your Church I hope all your Subjects will submit to it but then it must be moreover proved that all Christians are such Subjects or else we hope we shall not be involved under that obligation Section 8 As for your long deduction from whence you conclude that either wee are deceived or you and that it is not necessary that both should we grant it and professe our opinions that though both you and we are fallible yet only you are or can be deceived in this particular which we conceive is cleare because only you pretend Infallibility which we not pretending but affirming that we are not so cannot in this be deceived unlesse we be infallible but see not what it concludes against his Lordship whose argument depends not on any such assertion that both parties are deceived but only that your pretended Infallibility is by you proved by no other arguments then those which you confesse are fallible Section 9 What you adde by way of triumph and scoffe I must not answer but by yeilding you free leave thus to please your selfe and if this recreation tend at all to your health to advise you to do so still and whensoever it may be for your divertisement to reckon up the names of London Great Tue and the two Vniversities Section 10 After the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sang you at length bethinke your selfe that his Lordship had affirmed that Scripture Reason and Fathers are by you maintained to be all fallible and to this you answer by a distinction of universally speaking and in some cases onely and acknowledge that you affirme them all to be fallible onely in some cases Now first you ought to have given answer to his Lordship's proofe for what he said which was this that you affirme that onely the Church is infallible from whence it is a conclusion that therefore Reason and Scripture and Fathers are by you affirmed to be fallible whereas you letting the premises alone apply answer to the conclusion which is as much against Logicke as to deny it without denying the premises or shewing the falsenesse of them But then Secondly that which is fallible in some cases onely is by that acknowledged to be fallible and by that is proved unsufficient to prove another thing to be infallible in all things for if it be fallible in any case it may be fallible in this that it pronounces that other to be infallible and till there be some infallible argument produced that it is infallible in that particular pronouncing its Infallibility in other things will availe nothing or if it doe it may availe also for us to prove what we offer to prove from it that your Church hath erred Section 11 There is no possible avoiding of this but by saying and proveing it infallible in inducing your conclusion and false aswell as fallible in inducing ours for if it be true though it be fallible it will serve our turne but it must be both or will not serve yours you being obliged to prove the Infallibility of your Church by something which is it selfe infallible because it must be matter of faith with you which nothing is but what is infallibly induced but it is sufficient for us to beleive you and your Church fallible though we should make it no matter of faith that you are so which because you endeavour not to doe in this place it will be impertinent to examine the truth of what else you adde concerning the cases wherein you affirme Reason and Scripture and Fathers to be infallible any farther then thus that by your owne explication of the distinction and enumeration of cases I shall conclude that Reason doth not prove infallibly that your Church is infallible because the Infallibility of your Church is not an evident verity Scripture doth not prove it so because it is not certainly expounded to that probation Fathers doe not prove it so because it was not a doctrine held in their time and affirmed by them to be so Each of which negations of mine though they were as sufficient proofe as what you have offered to the contrary yet I shall undertake to make good against you if you shall thinke fit to call me to it by setting downe your reasons to the contrary Section 12 And so if on your supposition his Lordship 's three maine props were fallen to the ground which is another boast that had no more relation to the present matter then ground in truth and therefore I beseech you leave out such excesses hereafter yet your supposition being not so much as endeavoured to be proved the props stand as firmly as is desired To the
of saying that it was necessary but rather the contrary and by saying it is impossible implies he cannot thinke it necessary and therefore when you affirme of his Lordship that by consequence of his Doctrine he imposes this impossible taske upon the illiterate and doe not so much as pretend to mention that consequence this is so clear a prevarication that you cannot take it ill at any friends hands to call upon you to confesse and retract it and of that nature is that other suggestion here that his Lordship seems to say that ignorant men doe assent to truth on no better grounds than others doe to falshood there being no such syllable here affirmed and if afterwards there be we shall there meet with it Section 4 The second part of the Argument is in relation to the learned proving that tradition cannot to them infallibly prove the Infallibility of your Church or be a rule by which to square your beleife in this particular so farre at least as to make it to them necessary to be beleived as your friends doe and must say it is because it is possible they may mistake in it and that mistake will not be damnable in them if they fall into it with a good conscience as possibly they may i. e. if they use their best diligence to find the truth by tradition and are not kept from it either by prejudice or passion though it should fall out they doe not finde it Section 5 This argument thus drawne out at length his Lordship confirmes by a cleare and pertinent instance suppose me in my inquest whether the Church may erre to enquire whether it ever hath erred and in that inquest suppose me to meet with some motives which really perswade me that the Church hath contradicted her selfe which if she hath done she hath certainly erred because both branches of a contradiction cannot be true but one of them must needs be false in this case it followes that I beleive she hath erred Wherein though it is possible that I may erre because the premises which I beleived true may be false yet because it is but an errour in my judgement that did so thinke and that being reconcileable in this case with sincerity will not be damning to me it will follow that it will be pardonable in me though never so learned that Tradition doth not convince me of the truth of that which I did really conceive it shewed me to be false it being as pardonable in the learned to beleive that errour which they conceive Tradition tells them as it was impossible for the unlearned to know what is Tradition Section 6 The whole weight of this part of the Argument lies in this that what ever is necessary to be beleived must be offered to be proved by a meanes wherein the learned at least cannot erre pardonably and therefore the Infallibility of the Church offered to be proved by Tradition that Tradition being a thing wherein the learned may erre pardonably is not proved by that meanes to be necessary to be beleived Or in a Syllogisme thus That wherein the learned may erre pardonably is not a meanes to prove the Infallibility of the Church to be necessary to be beleived but Tradition is a meanes wherein the learned may erre pardonably therefore Tradition is not a meanes to prove the Infallibility of the Church to be necessary to be believed Section 7 This is the summe of what his Lordship saith in the other part of that paragraph and to no part of this Syllogisme or of the materialls there out of which I have formed it doe you returne the least answer or deniall but rather confirme the Minor First by using Arguments to prove that it is a difficulty and knot common to Papists with Protestants to finde out the conformity of their doctrine with the Ancients which difficulty being granted will prove that in that matter the learned may erre pardonably Secondly by asserting that there be other notes of truth besides this of conformity with the Ancients and therefore that enquiry after that is not necessary to any man which seemes a disclaiming of that as of an unfit Argument Thirdly by saying that we know the conformity by the truth much easier then the truth by conformity From whence it will follow that conformity is a very ill Argument and the worse the Argument the more pardonable the errour in it And fourthly by the professed unfitnesse of this Argument at large dilated on by you with this conclusion that the conditions for the understanding of Tradition are so very hard that certainly God never imposed them on us On which grounds you offer us another meanes of proving it which shewes that this was unsufficient in your opinion viz. the conspicuous body of the present Church which if it be not a very fallible meanes also as in many respects I might prove it were particularly by this that the compasse of Christians that are of that Church of yours is not by common computation a third part of the Christian world is certainly very distant from Tradition which that it is not a meanes infallible in this matter is all that his Lordship now contends in that present Argument Section 8 The onely thing that is by you produced against this difficulty of using this meanes and so pardonablenesse of erring is the last period of the Chapter which commends the reading of the Magdeburgians as a readier way to know conformity then examination of places Section 9 To which I answer that if they have voluntarily confessed that there is constant Tradition for the infallibility of the Roman Church then have you fitly cited them if they have not or if upon my present instance you doe not shew that they have either directly or by certaine consequence then have you wronged them in this your affirmation and left your selfe no meanes to prove your conclusion by that medium Section 10 This is all I shall say to that long Chapter and in that I have shewed that through it you much mistooke the Argument proposed in the title of the Chapter the confutation of the fourth paragraph of which there being two parts you spake no word against either of them and therefore if I should allow every word of that Chapter to be true though you would be beholding to me yet would it be no advantage to you against his Lordship's present reasoning to which all you say is very extrinsecall and impertinent But that I may not lay too great an obligation on you by so liberall a grant I wil mention to you some infirm parts in that your discourse Section 11 I have touched on three already and your evidences that your Church and Religion is the true which you mention for the illiterate and are no one of them evidences may be added to the number which I need not prove because you have not attempted to prove but onely assert the contrary And so also your Divinity cited out
conclusion with that great popular argument that prevailes with so many a bare confidence of affirming it it is very remarkable what your next attempt is why in stead of that hard taske which lay so heavy upon your shoulders to get an easier if 't were possible and therefore you foresee that some may peradventure deny your Churches verity to be evidently credible Good Sir what is this but to suborne a weaker adversary to challenge you that you may be excused from fighting with the stronger we desire plaine dealing that you will prove your principles of probation to be certaine and manifest which is the thing you affirm'd and not to thinke to put us off with more obscure and lesse containing tearmes of your Churches verity being evidently credible For first your Churches verity i. e. I conceive its being the true Church for I hope you speak not now of its Metaphysicall verity or its being truly a Church for so it may be and be very fallible and very corrupt is an equivocall phrase and in what ever sense is not so much as your Churches infallibility for it may be a true Church and not be infallible i. e. upon supposition that what ever now it taught were actually true 't were yet possible it might erre even when it doth not nay if its verity should signifie that it were a true Church as perhaps you meane exclusively to all others i. e. that the Catholique Church were the Roman Church and the Roman the Catholique yet speaking of the present state of the Church i. e. of the present Roman Church though it were supposed to be the present Catholique Church yet may that be fallible again because those that are now in the truth may fall into errour and others rise up as they fall to be defendors of the truth and so the promise of God of keeping his Church from finall or totall falling be made good still Section 4 As for that other largest notion of the Catholique Church under which we confesse it to be infallible that of the universall Church all the world over without any restriction I conceive it impossible that by your Church which is the Church with an eminent restriction you should meane that and upon that ground it was that I affirm'd that the verity of your Church in what ever sense is not so much as its infallibility Section 5 Then againe your phrase of evidently credible is not sure so much as certaine and manifest for though evidently credible sound strangely and if it have any sense in it hath also some obscurity yet I shall suppose you meane by it that which is credible or may be believed and of which it is evident that it may the words Grammatically can beare no other sense then this that it is evident that they are credible now certainly to be evident and certaine is much more then to be credible though it be never so evident that it is credible For suppose me actually to acknowledge that you have some probable arguments that your Church is the true Church nay suppose it is so evident that you have such arguments that every man that hath common understanding will be ready to acknowledge you have so doth it thence follow that I or all others doe and must acknowledge that you have demonstrated it this is to make no difference between the two sorts of Arguments in Logick Topicall and Demonstrative or in a word to conclude that to be infallible which you durst not say was any more then credible for as for the word evidently added to it it cannot have such an influence on the word credible as to make that quite another or higher sort of things then it was Credible in the clearest or highest degree is but credible still as the eminentest or excellentest man in the world is a man still and therefore in briefe if we should helpe you to fewer adversaries then you have and take off that suborn'd enemy of yours whom you suppose to deny your Churches verity to be eminently credible you would have gain'd by it but little peace from his Lordship who would still require you to make good your pretension of infallibility which will be a much harder theme to declaime for popularly I am sure Logically then the credibility of the verity of your Church Section 6 As for your way of answering that objection because the objection is not needfull for us to make Any reply or confutation of your answer will be as unnecessary I shall onely report to other men from your owne pen one notable decision of yours that in a triall of huge importance concerning the credibility of the verity of your Church I must be faine to use your phrase right reason and every man 's owne conscience must be the Judge which being so great an act of complyance and favour both to those which assert reason and to those that maintaine the private spirit to be the Judge of Controversies i. e. to two sorts of men which have hitherto beene believed opposite enough to your infallibility it will be but gratitude to reward so great a bounty with a favourable interpretation of a good meaning and he should be very rude and uncivill who would not grant upon such your demand that you are no Socinian nor inclining to that sort of mis-believers for sure he that makes right reason the Judge of his very principles must needs be so rationall and ingenuous that he can never be an Heretique though he say the very things that Heretiques doe Section 7 As for your very excellent similie of the eies and the spectacles I shall not have a word to say to it save onely this that although you have gotten the inclosure and monopoly of spectacles I meane of imposing of an exterior Judge upon us yet other men may be allowed to have eies as well as you i. e. to have reason and conscience to Judge of your Judge and then the issue according to your premises being granted to you will be this that they whose reason and conscience tels them that 't is not evidently credible that your Church should be the true Church exclusively to all others shall not be obliged to believe it is so for their owne reason say you and Conscience is to be judge that they whose reason c. tels them it is so credible may believe it if they please nay if they have no arguments as credible to the contrary and upon impartiall search can finde none it is very reasonable for them to believe what to their conscience is so credible but if they have such arguments to the contrary or if it be their fault that they have not they are sure no farther bound to believe it if they are not Subjects of your Church then those dictates of their conscience doe extend to oblige them or if they are Subjects yet no farther then the doctrine of obedience rightly stated which will be too long a worke for a parenthesis
semblance is the Church who needs not define her owne infallibility and therefore needs not because that same is to be presupposed to all her definitions as a thing knowne without them before hand for otherwise she would not be believed in any of them at all either touching her selfe or any other matter Neverthelesse though this definition be not in tearmes yet it is virtually done and in actu exercito as often as a Councell defineth any thing by the pronouncing of Anathema against such as doe not submit and counting them as Heretiques It is done againe in the using continually this old forme Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis For a conclusion I demand of these eager impugners both of Church and Councels what thing it it must regulate our beliefe and keepe us in discipline and unity for if they let all men loose upon themselves and make all men Judges in the Court of faith as they de facto doe controversies will multiply apace and no meanes left to reconcile them and while all men have authority of deciding no man hath it Reason alwaies did teach us that confusion would be the effect of this new licence yet could we never understand it till that now costly experience the mistris of the improvident hath laid it open before our eies And now at length we smart for our leaving the venerable decrees and definitions of Church aâ—d Councels and doe behold all brought to misery and ruine both Church and State yet such is our blindnesse as we are not able to disâ—erne the true causes of all these evils The daily growing up of new and new devices in stead of the old faith and the continuall discords and dissentions thereupon ensuing evict unanswerably the weaknesse and inaptitude of the rule of faith and our young and presuming wits way see how farre short they come of their forefathers wisedome and how much more unhappy then those who were governed by Church and Councels C. 14. Answ to Chap. 14. Section 1 The first part of this Chapter in the Apologist is answer onely to one of three or foure proofes of his Lordship's argument Section 20. viz. to that against the Councels being a rule of heresy when some passe for Heretiques that are not condemned by any Councell To this I confesse it were satisfactory if it were proved to say that Councels are a rule but not the onely rule But then First there is no other rule specified And Secondly this argument of his Lordships is complicated with three others being joined with which it is of force to strengthen one of them though of it selfe it were not sufficient to conclude and then neither of those are taken notice of Thirdly 't is meant but as a proofe against this rule not against any other And yet Fourthly his Lordship's method being to confute every one of them single as they lye all others being disproved this must be concluded the onely one or none at all and however no more can here be required then that here he disprove this from being the rule not that he disprove all others in this period Section 2 For your way of proofe that Councels are infallible First that is not answer to the contrary proofe And Secondly it is by a medium as much denied as it selfe the Infallibility of the Church whose quintessence it is and so your old acquaintance petitio principii againe Section 3 Your second part about John 22. puts us off to Ciaconius and Caeffeteau whom in obedience to your direction I should advise with but that I see from what you have learned from them that either you have proved an ill Schollar and 't were insolence in me to hope to be better or else that their resolutions are not pertinent to his Lordship's argument for the three things that you adde I conceive from their Writings are nothing at all to it Section 4 First not that which you grant for his Lordship grants it Secondly not that which you deny for his Lordship had not affirmed it unlesse from these words he was not alone you conclude that that which he contradicted was generally contradicted and then what his Lordship said may be as truly said to be generally granted for he is not you see alone in so saying Thirdly Not that which you say you doe not know for his Lordship knowes it as little and indeed sayes never a word of it Whereas the onely thing wherein the force of that part of his Lordships argument consisted viz. Bellarmines excusing Pope John in his denying of that which you believe from the no-Councell that had defined against him hath no title said to it but continues in great security to make good the argument that you doe amisse and withall either you or Bellarmine are very partiall to condemne those that are condemned by no generall Councell Section 5 Your Answer indeed to the 21. Section is nearer to the mark but yet it hits it not The argument is that no Councel ever decreed a Councell to be Infallible therefore as farre as the argument is drawne for beliefe from the infallibility of the Councell I am not bound to believe it infallible To this you answer 1. That for Councels so to define was not needfull because a Councell is the Church and the infallibility of that is a praecognitum in all her definitions otherwise it would not be believed in any Section 6 Here is excellent contrivance 1. For Councels to define that Councels are infallible is not needfull which sure is needfull if nothing be to be believed but what the Councell defines to be so and that must be granted 1. if the Councell be the rule of beliefe and 2. if the Councell be the Church as you say it is for that is the onely rule infallible if you be not deceived 2. That the Councell is the Church in substance I thought it had beene in representation onely and that nothing is the Church in substance but the Church in its full extent of which you said before the Church is onely the quintessence which sure is not the same in substance with that whose quintessence it is but onely the representation of it 3. That the Infallibility of the Church is a praecognitum if so then it is a principle and if so then I am sure I must not looke to see it prov'd and then as long as we deny it as we doe you know that is petitio principii againe 4. That unlesse the Church were presumed infallible before its determination it could never be believed in any this supposes men very hard-hearted that never will believe any thing but what some presumed infallible tels them Section 7 There is a beliefe as well as a certainty cui non subest dubium of which a man doth not doubt as well as cui non potest subesse falsum in which there can be no falsity and the Schooles have told you of a certainty of adherence where there is none of
although never so remote the cause of his death This is but to let us see your change or variety that you can use non causa pro causa and not deale onely in petitio principii thus was Tenterden Steeple the cause of Goodwin Sands and that is all I shall returne to your State-observation the cause of our present calamities I conceive came not out of the Church but when it was infamous it fled to it for a Sanctuary to give it an honest Name and a protection together and I could tell you that the League in France was once pretty parallel to ours and then 't was the observation of a knowing man that if a true story of the causes of that Warre should be written the businesse would be traced into such or such a brothell house that made as if it came out gravely from the Church a competition or animosity the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or true cause when religion was onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the pretended Besides let me tell you that decisions and anathematizings have sometimes done as much hurt toward occasioning of breaches as licence and acknowledgement of fallibility hath done and if you marke the onely colour of charge at this time against our Church hath beene the imposing too much and truly whatever your opinion is I conceive meeknesse hath the promise of this life and I never knew that pretending to Infallibility is the onely Symptome of that To the 23 24 25 Sections Chap. 15. The argument of these three Sections is how an ignorant illiterate man cannot be able to trace out all traditions which be truly Apostolicall and this is sought to be perswaded and made good by sundry intricate discourses all which I willingly doe pretermit and onely signifie that they all fall wide of the marke for in a word our answer to them is that private men stand in no need at all of having any particular information of them but that it is sufficient for them if they doe learne what is the common doctrine of the present Church without looking any higher to the Primitive and elder times because this doctrine now taught is credible and perswasive enough for satisfying of any wise mans understanding and the setling of his judgement upon it as for example it is sufficient for any man desirous of knowing which is the River Thames to see it at Gravesend or London without any laborious ascending by it higher and higher and tracing the shoares thereof till he come unto the springs and more then this would not be needfull for the distinguishing of it from Severne or Trent or any other River For if this kinde of assurance might not be sufficient then certainly few or none could ever have come to know which water was the famous River Nilus of which few have ever seene the springs and which as it is very likely doe lye conceal'd in Aethiopia and wholly undiscovered even to this day Against the possibility of searching out traditions Apostolicall and discerning them from others that be spurious and false his principall instance and that in which he most confides is the doctrine of the Chiliasts or Millenaries and the same example is vehemently pressed and repeated often by his Friend Chillingworth The substance of all they say consists in this namely that their doctrine although now generally received to be erroneous was received in the first 200. yeares with one consent as a tradition Apostolicall For making of this charge good they both of them doe jointly alleadge Saint Justin as their witnesse But that we may judge most favourably of this their allegation we needs must tell them they are mistaken grossely for Saint Justin speaking there of three severall sorts of Christians which were in his time affirmes that of those three but one of them held the doctrine of the Chiliasts The first of these three sorts was as he describeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those who as he conceived did in all points hold aright The second classe consisted of such other who although they did not like the former in all things hold aright yet neverthelesse were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of pure and pious judgement or beliefe for so he expressely stileth them the third and last sort were such as denied the resurrection and were therefore censured by him to be Christians rather in name then in reality and justly to be compared with the Sadduces amongst the Jewes Those of the first sort he telleth did hold the doctrine of the thousand yeares The second sort as he expressely witnesseth although they were orthodox and good yet did not hold that doctrine Those of the third sort as he saith were Christians but feignedly and in name alone and resembling the Sadduces yet not for their denying the errour of the thousand yeares for what relation could that have unto the Sadduces But contrariwise for their denying the resurrection as the Sadduces did and all this appeares clearly within the compasse of a few lines in the Greeke text of Saint Justine Besides if all at that time had beene perswaded of the truth of the Millenaries fancy what needed Saint Ireneus have laboured so much as he did and spent so many Chapters in the proving of it This being so it appeares as plainly that the Enquirer and also his Partner Master Chillingworth were both of them deceived in seeking to father upon Saint Justin that all Orthodoxall Believers of his time received the doctrine of the Chiliasts and that such as did not were held as Sadduces or Heretiques for in the Text of Justin there is no such matter but rather the quite contrary to it as may appeare fully by the Text it selfe and partly by the words before recited out of him for without all doubt Saint Justines many of pious and pure judgement or beliefe and were no Chiliasts must needs be Orthodox and could not be Heretiques nor as the Sadduces amongst the Jewes unlesse we will say that with one breath he called them by both contrary names Againe if as these men say all the whole Church were Chiliasts during the first second or third hundred yeares how could or durst Dionysius of Alexandria have opposed them either without forcing his owne Conscience or incurring the blame of Heresy Now it is certaine he was not counted an Heretique and againe very unlikely he would straine his Conscience by opposing any doctrine received as orthodoxall by the whole Church Againe it is probable Saint Dionyse the Areopagite opposed that doctrine therefore it cannot be certaine that during the first 200. yeares it was not opposed that Saint Dionyse did it appears by the workes now extant bearing his name and that these works be his is very probable first because they are received for such by the major part both of the Westerne and the Easterne Church secondly because they were cited for his a thousand yeares agoe and numbred amongst the rest of the Fathers antient
and undoubted Monuments by an intelligent Author Philoponus l. 2. de Operib Creat c. 21. l. 3. c. 9. 13. The like may be said of the pretended tradition of the Quartodecimanes touching the celebration of Easter after the manner of the Jewes which was wholly rejected and forbidden in the first Nicene Councell and before that time opposed by many and principally by Pope Victor who as Ciacconius conceives did not cut Polycrates and his Associates from the body of the whole Church but only threatned it or as Eusebius seemes to say did doe it but yet at the instance of Saint Ireneus and some others if he had once past it did not prosecute the censure against them but let it fall and that it was so is very probable because there is no memory made how the sentence was received whether with obedience or otherwise which particular doubtlesse would never have beene omitted by Historians no more then the sentence it selfe or the intention of it was if there had beene any thing to register and besides because we finde not by any record but that all proceeded with those Asian Churches as formerly it had done without any note or alteration And by this is solved all that Chillingworth with so much animosity objecteth against the learned Cardinall Perone Salvian lib. 5. de Gubern Dei where he speakes in excuse of some Arian Gothes speakes not at all in excuse of their Heresy but supposing that sundry of them might have beene innocently mis led conceiveth more hope of such mens salvation then of such Catholiques who lived carelesly and lewdly Now what can this make against the tradition or definition of the Church Onely this Inquirer must say something to his Mother and be making difficulties where none is Ch. 15. Answ to the Chap. 15. Section 1 To the three next Paragraphs 23 24 25. you professe it needlesse for you to give any answer and doe it so willingly because as you say the discourses are intricate i. e. such as you cannot easily accommodate answer to but especially because it is sufficient for private men to learne the common doctrine of the present Church and therefore there will lye no obligation on me to reply any thing save onely this that his Lordships arguments doe still prove sufficient to the end to which he designed them to shew that Tradition is no infallible guide which that you acknowledge your diversion seemes to intimate and your many proofes that 't is not needfull it should be Section 2 But then it is in you a great injustice not to take notice of his Lordships designe to which his arguments are concluding but to impose another on him to which he never thought himselfe engaged nor could have foreseene your pleasure without the spirit of divination and yet to chide him for impertinence and pretermit and despise all that he hath said upon this onely ground of displeasure because he hath not proved what you now thinke fit to set him for his taske Section 3 This onely you must please to note that the appointing the ignorant to learne their beliefe from the common doctrine of the Church as before you did from the Catechismes doth intimate your opinion that your present Church is infallible but is no shew of proofe that it is so and so Petitio principii nay if your words signifie as they sound that your doctrine thus taught is credible and perswasive enough I may conclude that your Church is not infallible for whatever is taught by such an one is more then credible and perswasible Section 4 Your subtilty about the way of knowing the River Thames will as little come home to the businesse of Infallibility though to Credibility it may unlesse every Water-man on the River be as infallible as your Church for of him it is that I learne it and though his credit be great enough for a matter of this moment and in it I would as willingly be ignorant or uncertaine as be at the trouble to seeke out a better security In matters of greater moment I may be excused if I am not so credulous if I choose not to believe them whose interests are concerned at least if I thinke every Catechisme on the stall to be somewhat lesse then infallible Section 5 Having now sufficiently disclaimed Tradition at least shewne your opinion of it that you have little need of it to sustaine your Churches infallibility and so granted as much as his Lordship attempts to prove yet for some former profession of kindnesse to it you will now take its part a little rather then his Lordship shall be permitted to say any thing true and vindicate it from the argument about the Chiliasts In which I must tell you that what you here affirme of his Lordship and M. Chillingworth is not true of his Lordship whether it be of M. Chillingworth is not tanti as that not having the booke by me I should take the pains to examine it Section 6 As First this that he seekes to father on Saint Justin that all orthodoxall beleivers of his time received the doctrine of the Chiliasts whereas all that his Lordship saith is but the repeating of Justin's owne words wherein he cannot be deceived in your opinion for you before recite the same and translating them wherein he is not deceived for he doth it ad literam and in a word affirming that Justin saith he holds it and so doe all that are in all parts orthodoxe Christians which phrase all that are i. e. which he saith are in all parts orthodox that it differs from this other of yours all orthodoxall beleivers I shall appeale to no other judgement then that of your owne conscience who in the former page affirme that Justin spake of three sorts of men First Those that did as he conceived in all points hold aright the second which though they did not so in all things yet were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a pure and pious judgement and those which are such I shall suppose to be orthodoxall beleivers though as it appears by your acknowledgment they did not hold right in all things Or if your analysing of the place doe not sufficiently convince you of this difference and the injury that consequently you have done his Lordship I shall then having long agoe seriously weighed that place First give you an account of it such as I doubt not will satisfie you and when I have done so Secondly confesse the weakenesse of that place to conclude any thing against Catholique tradition and yet Thirdly make it cleare that you have wronged his Lordship in your report of his citation Section 7 First For the doctrine of the millennium I professe to beleive that it appears not to be Justin's affirmation that it was not opposed by his contemporaries but rather the contrary which I conclude from these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have signified to you that many doe not acknowledge this doctrine of
Arrians after they were condemned by a Councell either differs much from your Church that will condemne any man for an Hereticke that shall professe not to condemne all Protestants or else must suppose and admit the plea for Salvian that he was so earnest against ill men that for aggravating of their crime he lessens that of Heretickes And then if it may be accepted in one Fathers behalfe that he could speake hyperbolically or passionately why may it not be admitted in another that one of those or some other collaterall consideration might have influence on any speech that should be cited from them and then the authority of fathers will cease to be infallible Section 22 For this by the way you may please to observe of his Lordship's reasonings about tradition and authority of fathers which before I gave warning of that they are not designed or fitted to the taking away all authority from them to make them vile or meane to any but onely to reduce them in ordinem to prove them not infallible the Topicke à testimonio humano is but a Topicke still and though sometimes being heightened with circumstances of which it is capable it is a very convincing Topicke yet is not for all this a demonstration and so there is a difficulty which may exercise you in stead of scoffing of his Lordship in the close of the Chapter To the 26 Section Chap. 16. The Enquirer seemes to be troubled not a little because we will not say with him that men may be saved in a false religion or because we doe not thinke our religion false or any other religion true besides our owne and in the same veine Chillingworth his Commentatour runnes very fluently and upon this ill sounding string is harping continually Yet for all this harping it will not be easily understood what offence against Charity it can be for us to judge either that Christianity alone is the saving religion or that our religion is the onely true Christianity For say we should be deceived in making this judgement yet this same at the most can be but a want in our selves of right understanding and not any breach of charity towards others or any matter of exclamation as some frivolous men of late have made it Wherefore if we will state the question rightly we are not to enquire whether we want charity in holding that none but Catholickes and true Christians can be saved or in our holding that we onely are of that sort or againe whether our adversaries for their accusing us want not wit and charity together or at least one of them but the question betweene us ought to be whether there be more saving religions then one or whether ours be not that one and this is the old controversy in Bellarmine and others and may be disputed without any anger or without disguising or multiplying of controversies on set purpose done by these Novellists as it seemes for making more businesse then needed or causing more distast and alienation then was before The Enquirer is much displeased with us for damning as he cals it all that are not of the Church of Rome But for pacifying of his angry spirit I demand of any for him what sinne he thinkes it in us to judge that all who die out of the Church of God die in an evill state or what other to thinke that our Catholique Church which he diminitively cals the Church of Rome is the only Church of God Let him satisfie me in this and I will easily satisfie him in the other In the meane time we are not nice to declare That there is but one saving Religion That there is but one true Christianity and that one is the saving religion That there is but one Catholicke Church and that this one Church is by the institution of Christ and according to the consent of antiquity to be governed by the See Apostolique and by the Successour of Saint Peter as chiefe Pastour and President of the rest Now what hurt is there in all this or what want of Christian charity It is not uncharitable to say that some offenders shall be damned and if any then why not those who are truly and really Sestaries and men obstinate for it is like that they deserve it as well as any There wanted not one of this Enquirers confraternity who fancied sometimes to himselfe that all the damnation that was to fall upon the wicked was an annihilation of them and extinction and not a perpetuity of torments which conceit is so charitable that it exceeds the charity even of God himselfe and controules his revelations made to the contrary in the Holy Scripture and condemnes them as guilty of too much rigour and severity and therefore no marvaile though we poore mortals cannot escape their censure But now lest any man should thinke our doctrine to be harsh and rigorous he may please to be inform'd that we doe not hold every man for a Pagan and an Infidell who embraces Paganisme but only so many of them as be guilty of their errour through affected or culpable ignorance which defect though it be a formall ignorance of the truth yet it is a virtuall knowledge of their errour and an interpretative rejection of the truth and also a resistance to God and his divine veracity manifested in his revelations and therefore all these whether Pagans os Heretiques be hainous offenders and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say judged and condemned by their owne consciences of which doctrine it seemes both this Enquirer and after him his second Master Chillingworth were ignorant by their insinuating that no man is an Heretique or selfe-condemned but onely such as adhere to a doctrine which he formally knowes to be erroneous that is to say onely such as doe that which is impossible to be done which conclusion is a covert affirmation that there be no Heretiques at all nor can be any and so all is safe whether sound or no. In like manner we doe not hold to be an Heretique or to be out of the Catholique Church every one who embraces an heresy but such a number of them onely as doe it with an obstinate mind and without preparation to be reformed or to hearken unto reason when it is told them By which doctrine it appeares that we are not so strict as we may seeme nor yet so large as some would have us For on the one side we doe not maintaine that Heretiques can be saved or that heresy is not a deadly or damnable sinne as some Socinians and other Libertines would have us thinke And on the other side we dilate the spaces of the Church Catholique farther then every body conceives we doe and by that meanes comprehend within it many that in the eye of the world seeme aliens unto it so that our charity is not irregular in judging Heretiques to be in good state but it is rather in concluding that very many are not Heretiques really and
religion it destructive of all others and that amongst us it is a maine principle or maxime that all other are to be invaded and destroyed by us and this it affirmed confidently though against all probability and experience It cannot indeed be denyed but truth is destructive of falshood by the owne power as light is of darknesse and one contrary of another but for externall coaction or violence we leave that to the Accusers and doe not owne it By this it is not hard to make a judgement who have been the encroachers and who have propogated and maintained themselves by violence you or we And who are the destructive party and live by the spoiles and oppression of others let not those who possesse other mens goods cry out of wrongs or make any brags of just dealing for neither of these can come well out of their mouthes This Enquirer confesseth both sides are in fault but we in more and for this assertion of his brings in some light sophistry because forsooth Protestants hold that they may erre but we maintaine we cannot and so will be sure never to mend That Protestants may erre is granted him and needs no other probation then experience whereby we finde thy have filled all this Kingdome with dissentions and these dissentions with civill warres so that by this that you have erred we know you may But so frequent possibility of erring doth not extenuate but aggravate your crime For if you may erre so foulely how dare you undertake to tutour others how prescribe Lawes with what face Persecute If your rule be so weak as it cannot containe you all in one body but lets you disperse into multitude of Sects and fall in pieces as now you doe why doe you not forsake it and seeke a better for it or else have none at all if you can finde out a surer why doe you not learne wit by experience but wallow on still in the same mire If this Enquirer speake so ill for his Clients we will not entertaine him for our Advocate The Protestants side sets downe for a rule of religion every ones private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture and so doth Master Chillingworth the disciple of Volkelius We doe all that yet we doe not please them nay more we must be punished by them for the result what is this but to bid us doe a thing and then punish us for doing it Is not this extreame perversity certainly if the rule they give be a sufficient warrant for their receding from the faith of their Ancestours and for their breaking off from the Church and standing in defiance of her then doubtlesse much more may it warrant us to continue on and to keep off from any new doctrines either of the Protestants or any other Innovatours whatsoever and sure this is great reason and cannot be gainsayed Besides if we were to yeild to whom were it to be done There is a world of distracted Sectaries now in this Kingdome all sprung from the same roll or from the rule of faith which it common to you all of which one sort imagines there is no Papacy and these were the first ring-leaders of all the rout another that there is no Episcopacy a third that there is no Clergy but that Lay-Elders is all in all and must rule the roast a fourth that there is no Church nor Church-government at all but that the Church is like a Schoole of Philosophers where every man may believe and doe what he pleases without being accountable to another or any obligation of conformity and peradventure the Inquirer was one of this number together with his confederate M. Chillingworth a fifth sort that there is no Trinity a sixth that there is no Sacrament or at least none necessary or effectuall Is it not fit thinke you that these divided Christians should come and write Lawes to others or punish any man for non-conformity nothing more improbable It is a Comedy to see D. Featly a Protestant and Page a Puritan make Catâ—logues of Heretiques and when they have done can finde no way whereby to exempt themselves nor give a reason why they themselves should not be of the number as much Sectaries as any other of the Catalogue The Inquirer charges us that because we pretend to be infallible we have lesse reason to prescribe to others but on the contrary me thinkes we should have more for as he who is really infallible is fittest to guide and governe others so he that thinkes himselfe to be is at least in his own judgement more fit than he that does not He addes that this pretence of infallibility makes us sure never to mend or as his Schollar Chillingworth speaketh makes us incorrigible True if it were a meere pretended one but that is not yet proved either by him or any although he say here in this 28. Section he undertakes to give reasons why the Church of Rome is fallible But if on the other side it be a reality and that the Inquirers reasons are but pretended then surely will not this infallibility keep us from mending but contrariwise from erring or having any thing to mend or which is all one from any errours to correct And thus we see that our Religion is maintained by the selfe same arts that bred it that is to say not by force or violence but by reason and revelation and spirituall industries contrary to the surmises of this Inquirer C. 16. Answ to Chap 16. Your doctrine of damning all that are out of the Church of Rome you have enlarged much above the occasion that invited you to it for all that his Lordship had said on that theme was onely this that your certaine and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome averseth him from it Which if it be true you cannot blame him for sure they that heare the punishment of judging Mat. 7. being judged of the Lord will have little love to that piece of sensuality or consequently to the religion that requires them to runne upon this danger And that the charge is true of you you doe at first acknowledge by labouring to prove that there is no uncharitablenesse in it Secondly that it is necessary for you to maintaine or that otherwise you must fall into some great absurdity particularly this that there is any Church but that which is governed by the See Apostolique which is a rare petitio principii againe and saves us the paines of saying one word more in defence of the truth and justice of those true words of his Lordship For indeed that enclosure of the Church Christianity and Salvation to those that are under the Roman submission is the uncharitablenesse that you are charged of The envy of which it seemes after all your confidence you are willing to remove from you and therefore adde an handsome lenitive to keepe any from thinking that your doctrine is rigorous or harsh And truly if you might be taken at your
thought knowes much better what doctrines be agreeable to the goodnesse of God then yours can doe what is against it and therefore your owne reason and understanding teaches you that the Churches understanding is to be preferred and that yours must submit and againe that this is the rationall way and not the other this the way of understanding and that of errour And so much in answer to this fallacy wherein I perceive both he and Master Chillingworth confide very much As for particular doctrines it is true as you say you may examine whether they agree with the Principle that is foundation yet neverthelesse cannot you from thence conclude any thing against the doctrines or Infallibility of the Church but rather for it and this for the reason before specified Neither doe we therefore send you to a witnesse and bid you not believe it but rather to believe it as farre as in right reason you are to believe it and not farther that is to say you are to trust to your owne particular discourses as to particular discourses and no farther but to the resolves of the Church as to the dictamens of a higher understanding by the light of which you are to judge and censure of the rest and by doing thus you are sure you doe wisely and safely and in fine so as although you should chance to erre you might answer the businesse at the latter day by saying I did in this case what I ought to doe for I followed what my reason taught me and more then this was not required at my hands But if I follow my owne judgement and in confidence of that doe adventure to condemne the Church In that I offend against my reason and true judgement and should not be able to make a good apology for my selfe or any way make it good that I followed my reason which faculty is the rule that God hath set mee For a conclusion of this dispute I answer in briefe that putting the Inquirers argument as he ought to have put it namely thus as followeth This guide to my understanding or to my seeming teaches things contrary to Gods goodnesse therefore it is not appointed by him for a guide putting I say the argument on this manner it is nothing so good or so concluding an argument as this other is videlicet This guide teaches such and such doctrines therefore they are not against the goodnesse of God and therefore againe my understanding was deceived in holding them to be so and therefore lastly notwithstanding all this she may be an infallible guide and appointed by God for such Note that we inferre hence she may be but not that she is as the Inquirer would impose upon us for we doe not say that the Church is appointed a guide therefore because it is agreeable with God's goodnesse to make her so but because we for other reasons know he hath so made her because we are not now to learne but that many things are agreeable to Gods goodnesse to be done which yet are not done nor peradventure ever will be Wherefore when we are to judge what is or will be we are to consider not what his goodnesse may admit but what his will determines shall have a being for of that lastly depends the existence of things and not of the other C. 18. Answ to C. 18. Section 1 In your report of his Lordship's argument Section 30. you leave out those words therefore there is one and so make nonsence of that period which in his Lordship's setting of it is excellent reason But I can believe that this was but a slip As for your answer to the parrallel cases wherein saith his Lordship Gods goodnesse is equally concerned doe you thinke you can ever satisfie any reasonable man in saying that the first thing he speaks of is onely contrary to Gods goodnesse in his Lordships understanding not absolutely but of the second he speaks not as it is in his understanding but as it is simply in it selfe from whence you conclude that he changes the tearmes Certainly Sir in despight of your exception argument is good Thus Section 2 If it be sufficient to conclude an infallible guide because it agrees not with Gods goodnesse to let men want one then any man that conceives that Church to teach any thing which he conceives against Gods goodnesse by the same reason is not to receive her doctrine The case is cleare because nothing concludes to any man any farther then it is conceived by him and that is not a proofe to me which I doe not conceive to be so which makes his Lordships arguing to be farre from fallacious For the matter of this paragraph is not whether it be really true that it agrees not with Gods goodnesse to let men want an infallible guide but supposing it to be so whether it will follow the Church is infallible or whether he whose understanding is convinced and perswaded of that truth that it is not agreeable to Gods goodnesse to let us want such a guide be enforced to confesse it infallible Section 3 This also his Lordship disputes not against but will willingly acknowledge the consequence supposing that the Antecedent were true onely by the same argument proves another thing that he that conceives the Church to teach any doctrine contrary to Gods goodnesse or that which is such to his understanding or he that supposes the Church to teach so must not believe that Churches doctrine So that if you marke the supposition is equall on both sides not taken for true one side and onely pretended on tother but one taken to be true by you that not to provide an Infallible guide is contrary to Gods goodnesse and tother taken to be true by his Lordship that Gods damning those that erre without either negligence or prejudication is contrary to his goodnesse also and if the Argument be of force on one side it must be so also on tother and for you to say that what you suppose is true but what his Lordship supposes is not so is a terrible petitio principii againe and no ground of a confutation against his Lordship The ridiculous arguments that you put in his Lordships paper without his privity will be matter of reproach to you who if you understood as I suppose you did were willing to deprave his discourses and not unto his Lordship Section 4 As for your way of satisfying his Lordships understanding that what the Church teaches is not contrary to the goodnesse of God because the Church knowes what is so better than he 't will sure prevaile little with any that is a disputing whether the Church is infallible or no as you see his Lordship now is for if she be fallible she may mistake in that judgment and that she doth not mistake there will be no assurance from her saying it as long as the controversy depends about her Infallibility which to affirme not to depend or to be no controversy is
petitio principii againe Section 5 As for your Conclusion of this dispute wherein you set the comparison betwixt two Arguments and say yours is much the better I shall not need debate that with you because they are not the two Arguments betwixt which his Lordship makes the comparison The first I confesse you have rightly set downe This Guide to my understanding teaches things contrary to Gods goodnesse therefore it is not the Guide and this will be as good an argument as this other 'T is to my understanding contrary to the goodnesse of God that the Roman Church should not be an infallible Guide or that there should be no infallible Guide where there is none but the Roman Church therefore the Roman Church is so In this comparison the consequences are equally true and built upon the same ground that that which is against Gods goodnesse cannot be and the Antecedents equally affirmed according to severall understandings and then whether the other Argument which you bring be comparable to either it matters not Section 6 But when at last you give us a note that the argument from God's goodnesse doth not conclude that your Church is infallible but onely that it may be so I confesse you make me repent of all this unprofitable attendance I have paid you in following your argument thus farre when your selfe have given me directions to a shorter cut of answering viz by granting that it may be infallible that is that nothing in nature resists but that if God's pleasure were so it might be infallible but say we we have no evidence from God that it is his pleasure it should and therefore we conclude it may be deceived or may be fallible betwixt which two though there may be some difference as there is betwixt falli and fallibilem esse yet unlesse some evidence can be brought against one which cannot against the other they will be both equally true as farre as respects our knowledge or debate of them Section 7 And when you adde that 't is from other reasons that you conclude she is infallible and not from this of Gods goodnesse I answer that 't is cleare that his Lordship was now disputing onely against that reason taken from Gods goodnesse which it seemes you confesse was no reason and for your other reasons they are either confuted in other paragraphs of his Lordships Treatise or when you produce them shall be To the 31. Sect. Chap. 19. This Section is spent in the enquiring whether a man shall be damned for making a diligent and impartiall enquiry after the true religion of which he finds the infallibility of the Church to be a part supposing that his reason when all is done will not assent This is his Quaere and the same may be made concerning any other verity or point of doctrine as namely of the holy Scripture whether or no it be the word of God and what shall become of that man whose reason after an impartiall search made will not assent or againe about the truth of Christian Religion unto which after such a search made his reason will not condescend I answer first that it is a mockery to aske whether or no any Man shall be damned for making a good enquiry without successe and in effect it is the same as to enquire whether a Man shall be damned for doing a deed that 's commendable and good For this Question supposes that either the Enquirer or we were very simple Creatures and did not understand our selves or else that the Gentleman-demander was not in earnest but propounded it only for his recreation though at a time ill chosen and unseasonable and also in a matter about which there ought to be no jeasting I answer secondly that in a place where instruction and information may be had the case he puts is morally impossible to happen out for we deny that where the search is diligent impartiall and without prejudice and where againe information sufficient is to be had that there the reason shall not be able to assent and that wheresoever it cannot that same happens either through weaknesse or inhability of judgment and capacity or else by reason of some disordinate passion of the will by which the understanding is misled and darkened as in those who are refractary it for the most part falls out Which passion and prejudices arise sometimes from custome and education sometimes from vitious inclinations sometimes from a crookednesse and perversity of nature which doth refuse instruction Wherefore as it is no sufficient excuse for an Infidel to say I have searched diligently whether or no Christ be the true Messias or whether the Scripture be the word of God or no and after all endeavours used my reason will not assent so in like manner it is as little sufficient to alleage that after enquiry made about the true Church and her Infallibility your reason would not assent for in these cases we cannot grant any ignorance invincible or free that errour which possesses them from guilt Now what shall become of others who want instruction sufficient and have no crookednesse or backwardnesse in their will and die in ignorance is another point and different from this of ours and is to be resolved in the Question about the efficacy of Implicite faith to which I referre my Reader Chap. 19. Answ to Ch. 19. Section 1 In this Paragraph his Lordship askes a Question Whether supposing that he that never heard of the Church of Rome shall not be damned for not believing it infallible it can be thought that he that hath made diligent search and used honestly all meanes afforded him and yet doth not believe the Church infallible shall be damned for that not-believing this is the Question and to weigh it downe on one side that that latter shall not be damning when tother is not this reason is put in that in this matter all that that Man hath done in the second case more than in the former is onely the having diligently enquired which is presumed to be no damning sinne Section 2 In stead of the Question thus put you set another somewhat distant but I will suppose tending to the same effect whether a Man shall be damned for making a good enquiry without successe which you say is a mockery and so as I conceive ridiculous to affirme it and so Sir after all your descanting on his Lordship for asking this question it is apparent by our explication of it that upon the denying of that which you say 't is ridiculous not to deny it inevitably followes that that Man shal not be damned for denying the infallibility of your Church Section 3 And though you take paines to perswade that this case is morally impossible yet you must give us leave from your stating of the case wherein you say it is so viz when information sufficient is to be had to conclude your proofe a petitio principii againe for when wee deny your Church to
be no Argument Section 4 This being premised I pray observe in the second place the no force of this Argument against us unlesse it may also appeare that our departing from you is the cause of these Dissentions For if they be but onely consequent to it accidentally this ought not in all reason to be laid to our charge any farther then thus that this accidentall consequent is a probable argument of one of these two things either that you have better rules for the restraining of such Dissentions than we or else that you are more carefull in executing the rules you have and if either of these be said by you I shall then tell you 1. That it seemes this Argument concludes but probably though the proposition were granted and I believe I could urge as probably on the other side and conclude the excellency of our Reformation from that old saying of Clemens by way of Answer to your Objection both of Jewes and Heathens against Christianity taken from the Dissentions of Christians in the Primitive Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The cause of them is because all things that are excellent are subject to the envy of Men and Devils and from thence to the sowing of seeds of Dissentions amongst them agreeably to that of our Saviour that as soon as the wheat was in the ground the envious sowed his tares Section 5 But then secondly for the preventing of such Dissentions I shall adde that though we have not pretence of infallibility and threats of fire to restraine Men from them yet we have other rules more agreeable to antient Church practice than either of these and though the weapon of our warfare are not carnall in your sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the taking away of life yet are they if they were executed mighty to bring downe or shut out Heresies For if you know it not I can tell you that Excommunication that soveraigne receipt of Christ and his Apostles the most perfect designe of charity to save and recover that which is lost to shame Men to reformation and upon contempt of that that secular rougher hand interposing the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo and the Statute of Abjuration are very strong restraints and if they have not been so diligently executed as they ought to be though I hope you will pardon this fault yet he that will not must charge it onely on the Persons of our Magistrates and not on our Religion or the state of our Reformation And then let me adde that even these lawes and this execution of them or the like whether among you or us can extend no farther then to outward restraints and that onely of those that will be so terrified or to punishment of them that will not but not to preventing of Heresies in the inward rise or growth or sometimes in the breaking out whensoever ambition of being Leader of a Sect c. are more prevailing than feare of punishments which cases must be lookt for in every Church Section 6 To which purpose you may please to reflect upon your selves and tell me whether there were not good store of Hereticks before the times of the Reformation If not I am sure Irenaeus Epiphanius and Saint Augustine and Philastrius have abused us in their Catalogues and I beseech you but to remember the ridiculous Heresies of Galatia which Saint Jerome mentions on occasion of Gal. 3.1 in respect of which he conceives the Apostle calls them such fooles and thinks they were bewitcht particularly those of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that would have Cheese mixt with the Bread in the Sacrament which with two others of the like stamp there mentioned came from Ancyra the Metropolis of Galatia And yet I believe you would not thinke the Argument of much force if it should from your example against us be made use of by us either against those Apostolicall Churches or against the Roman Church ever since that so many Heresies are gone out of it and yet that would be as reasonable in us as in you it is to charge all the Heresies which have been in the World since Luther upon the Reformation Section 7 For let me aske you is the fault that you object to us in this matter that Hereticks are gone out from us That which wee have said will satisfie you that that is no argument that we are not a true Church for if it be it will be of force against the Catholique Orthodox Church in all Ages Or is it that they that thus dissent from us are suffered to continue among us if that be it then first there are also Dissenters among you continuing with you Secondly our Lawes and Canons are for the casting them out if their dissentings be Hereticall and that is all that you can pretend of these and if we have been more indulgent than you would have us that is but an errour of tendernesse first and then that onely the fault of Persons Section 8 Having said thus much which I conceive full ground of satisfaction to what you have or can say in this matter I might now adde that if you looke no farther then the Church of England even in these which I suppose you will count the worst times of it you cannot finde any greater or more dangerous Heresies avowed by any considerable Party than are owned by some of the Jesuits among you Section 9 I shall first mention that popular doctrine you know what I meane of Bellarmine resumed and confirmed not long before his death with his most advised care in his Recognitions Secondly the doctrine and practice of resisting and deposing lawfull Magistrates under colour of religion that I set it no higher even to killing of Kings Thirdly the opposing the Order of Bishops as expresly contrary to the sole-power enstated by Christ on S. Peter And also Fourthly the affirming it lawfull that evill may be done so it be in order to a publique good and that I trouble you with no more and yet give you reason to thinke that it is in my power I beseech you to believe that I have read Watson's Quodlibets and I could without much difficulty make a parallel betwixt these whom you so much charge and those whom you defend your hatedst Enemies and your dearest Friends that Booke being so richly able to furnish me with hints that I have surveyed the Writings betwixt the Seculars and the Regulars with the late controversie among you about the Bishop of Calcedons being appointed Ordinary in this Kingdome produced and in them the difference about the necessity of Confirmation and the non even now mentioned in the Canon of the Councell as also the Symbolum Jesuiticum c. and if we have any greater divisions among us yet than these I beseech you to let me know it from you for I believe 't will be no easie discovery and I shall promise to doe and pray my utmost that they may be
avoided Section 10 This being thus set betwixt us I shall not need to descend to a particular survey of the truth of what you say that these differences among you are in matters not de fide though in that there would be a large field to amplifie in also Section 11 To his Lordships argument That the Church ought to have resolved these questions if they desired conformity with the antient Church you answer that neither of these Doctrines hinder Conformity with the Antients in any thing wherein Conformity is required and confirme that by an implicite Assertion which you will never be able to prove viz that the Fathers did not deliver doctrines as well as reasons directly contrary to the Dominicans Whereas 't is cleare they did viz to that that physicall predeterminations can consist with freedome of will Which even now you thought good not to deny but to excuse by a dilemma that if this opposition were not discovered to the Dominicans it would doe no hurt if it were it would be relinquisht It seemes by this that if they are discovered and not relinquisht the danger would then be great and so that if they knew this conformity this conformity would be requisite also and so is requisite in it selfe though by the excuse of blamelesse ignorance it be capable of mercy Section 12 To the 42 Sect. you answer by granting againe and thus you say also Master Ch. is answered and truly so any Man will be content to be answered I would all his Lordships Treatise had been so answered it had been more ease to your selfe and advantage to somebody else To the 43 Sect. Chap. 25. We doe not formally inferre that because our rule breeds unity therefore all dissenting Parties ought to yeild to that but that dissenting Parties have no rule on which it is fit or safe to rely and againe that in place of it we ought to seeke out one which causes unity because no rule can be good without that quality Neverthelesse it followes also ours is the true rule because de facto none but ours either doth it or is apt to doe it and one such rule there must be we are sure Ours then is not therefore to be accepted because it breeds unity but because it alone doth breed it As for Nilus he is a pratling Greeke and besides that in his severall sayings he overthrowes himselfe and confirmes our Doctrines in this point no heed is to be taken to what he saith Chap. 25. Answ to Chap. 25. Section 1 In this Chapter you disclaime an Assertion by affirming it disclaime it in these words That you doe not inferre because your rule breeds Vnity therefore all dissenting Parties ought to yeild to it and affirme it in these That dissenting Parties have no rule that they ought to seeke out one that causes unity that yours is the true rule and none but yours your meaning is it seemes that you doe inferre it but you doe it not formally and sure it matters little for formality when the thing is so granted by you Section 2 For that you put in the word onely it matter 's little because any other company that should deny that infallibility and usurp it themselves would soone get the monopoly of it also especially from any that differed from them in any particular As for Nilus 't is farre cheaper and easier to call him pratling Greeke than to confute his saying which yet if you please to marke his words in this place is no more than you say in the very undertaking to answer this Treatise that your Church must by all be lookt on as infallible To the 44 45 46 47 Sections Chap. 26. In these foure Sections the Enquirer busily endeavours to perswade that errours might secretly creep into the Church by degrees as a Child waxes bigger and as the index of a Clock moves about Be it so as the Enquirer saith yet neverthelesse might all such creeping errours if there were any be espied at least when they had once got in if not while they were stealing thither Thus the growth of a Child is seene plainly though not the growing and the hand or shadow of a Diall is seene at what houre it is though the slow pace thither was not perceptible and Men may give a judgement whether it goe false or true Why then could not errours be espied as easily after they were once stolne in though by never so small degrees they made their approaches thither Thus were the errours of Arius Pelagius Wicliffe Socinus and others presently discovered notwithstanding all their Authours counterfeiting and slie manner of divulging them even as tares which were sown while Men slept as soon as grown up were seen and noted What then should hinder all other pretended errours of the Church from being seen and registred although crept in never so insensibly What matter is it that sundry Bookes are lost Are they more lost for those errours then for others or were these more invisible then all the rest It is strange with what improbable conjectures this Enquirer deludes himselfe He tells us afterwards of another slie way of breaking in that is to say under old names and titles altering the signification but not the words But I would know how the errours of the Church could by this art be concealed more than the errours of Calvin who sought with old appellations to palliate his new Doctrines But in conclusion his principall device is that if no precedent opposition were a note of the being taught from the beginning that then the doctrine of the Chiliasts would passe for right and Apostolicall because as he affirmeth it was not contradicted till two hundred yeares after the coming in But my answer is it is more than any Man can prove that it was contradicted no sooner nay it is more than probable that it was contradicted in the time of S. Justin as we have shewed before and also highly probable that it was opposed and rejected in the time of Dionysius the Arcopagite as also hath been noted before Besides it is no way necessary that every casuall or innocent opinion should be forthwith contradicted or noted as an errour against faith and of this sort was the errour of the Chiliasts during the time it was held but as an opinion without censuring or condemning others to which height assoone as it arrived it was cryed downe presently and rejected The 48 Sect. containes but a recapitulation of what was before propounded and therefore requires no new answer to it The last Sect. containes nothing that deserves not commendation or is unworthy of the Author but is rather to be extolled and imitated by all that make Enquiries after truth and his resolves there be such that if they be truly and sincerily put in execution by any no man can have reason to be offended with him in this world nor is it likely that God will be displeased with him in the next But whether the Enquirer was
particularly by your self it is apparent that you affirme the Roman Church to be Infallible though not quatenus Roman this conclusion you deny not to follow from those rules but say you speak according to those rules And truly I have as yet no necessity to dâ—ny that you doe so nor shall I untill having affirm'd the Roman Church to be the Catholique you proceed to deny the Roman to be Infallible though the Catholâ—que be This you doe not yet distinctly deny though the whole controversie about the title of his Lordships booke shews that you are not very willing to stand to the affirmative When you doe so I shall make bold to put you in mind of those rules and in the meane onely to take notice of your owne confession that what you said was not for reprehension of the Enquirer which I must affirm to be a retrataction of your former writing which pretended to prove that in truth it was not so as in the Enquirer's title it is called This was then surely a reprehension of the Enquirer and if now you say you meant not to reprehend him this is to say you did not meane to doe what you did which being a â—â—ile of humility I shall never reproâ—ch or find fault with in you â—ut yet tell you that what you call in the next words of your Annotation your rectifying the manner of speaking and stating the Question aright is in my Answer proved to be contraâ—y to your owne manner of speaking and a cleare mis stating To which proofes as here you reply nothing nor is it imaginable how you should the matter being so evident viz that they that affirme the Roman Church to be the Catholique and the Catholâ—que to be infallible must needs affirme the Roman to be infallâ—blâ— so doe you in effect confesse that you had nothing to reply to the remainder of that whole Chapter which as it is the longest in the Book so by vindicating the fitnesse of his Lordships title and stating of the Question against your exceptions doth lâ—y very usefull grounds for the voyding your pretensions to infallâ—bility For if it be cleared by my first Chapter as I conceive it is and your Annâ—tations do not deny it to be that the Question is of the infallibility of the Roman Church then we that deny the Roman to be the Catholique must never be charged of denying the Catholique to be infallible nor be liable to the arguments that are brought against us upon that head which without question are the bâ—st you have though we deny it never so confidently of the Roman Id. D. Surely the meaning is very obvious Answ If it be I am sure the words doe not clearly expresse it for how should the editor of his Lordships tract to whom the former part of that period belongs in these words though no notice hath been taken of any answer given already take notice of giving licence for any other answer Give notice he might but that in my judgment is not to take and take notice you might but that I conceive would not cohere with the antecedents and any third way of rendring I confesse I imagin not and therefore still if the meaning be obvious it must be met with somewhere else then in the sound and contexture of the words but this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall not be imputed to you it was onely an officiousnesse in me then to shew you it was such Id. E. These are bitter scoffes and no way grounded upon my words Answ That the phrase sad newes was grounded on your words there recited by me I must still affirme for they are most evidently a forme of complaining and that is all I meant by sad newes yet if to you it seeme to be a scoffe or bitter and both those in the plurall more scoffes than one in that single expression though my conscience doth not accuse me of any such intention yet I will fall at your judgement and beseech you to pardon me for it and to make you reparations promise to endeavour to offend no more against you or any other Adversary by any kind of bitternesse and for once be you pleased to imitate my resolution and remember that when another man spake it sad newes was a bitter scoffe and then perhaps your reprehension of me may worke a double cure and heale you also of some excesses Chap. 2. Answ to Ch. 2. A. I doe not beg the Question but deny what the Enquirer assumed as true and granted namely that our proofes of the Church are no other nor better than those by which you impugne it which assumpt of his we deny and whether justly or no must depend upon the triall and the examination of his proofes to follow after and therefore this deniall of mine is no petitio principii but a right and Logicall deniall which either the Enquirer or you were bound to disprove and not to tell us as you doe that we are bound to prove against the Enquirer who here chargeth us and susteineth the Person of the Opponent or one that argues against our Infallibility I am the Defendent and no Defendent can begge the Question my discourse is Apologeticall as the Title tells you Answ I did not venture to tell you that you were guilty of a petitio principii untill I had as I conceived made an ocular demonstration to you that it was such which you may please to review in the place or to save you that trouble I shall tell you the summe of it you deny a proposition which in that place 't is cleare that his Lordship proves and having not answered one word to his proofes which is in effect to deny the conclusion you then give a proofe or reason of your deniall for we affirme that our Churches infallibility is proved by reasons which are reall and true c. this reason of yours being as much denied by his Lordship as your maine conclusion against which he disputes ought in any reason to have beene backt with some firme proofe and of that kind you give none but your owne affirmation and because you doe not this I there call a petitio principii agreeably both to Aristotles notion of that Sophisme and to the notation of the phrase For principium or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being acknowledged to signifie the question for that or any part of it to be brought in to prove any thing that in that disputation is denied is either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to begge the question or take it for granted and in effect to prove a thing by it selfe which is the most irrationall proceeding that can be If you are not yet convinced of this I shall yet farther give you a proofe of it from those antient Authours which can best judge of this matter the Interpreters of Aristotle Take one for all Magentius in his definition of this Sophisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A begging of the
reason will tell him this Answ This is the very thing which is disproved in that place and then the bare repeating it over againe will be but a meane kinde of vindication Be pleased to looke over the place againe and if you will still thinke that there was any place for this annotation I shall be sorry I have beene thus troublesome to you Ibid. B. I have shewed the reason why Answ When an argument is framed on a double supposition without disputing the truth of either 't is not to be allowed the respondent to answer by denying the truth of either of the things supposed for they are supposed in that dispute but not disputed of As for example if the question were Whether supposing Adam were not falne and Christ were come the coming of Christ could be for the sinne of Adam doe you thinke 't would be tolerable for the respondent to avoid some argument brought against him by saying that it was absolutely false to say that Adam was not falne whereas 't was true that Christ was come This would certainly be so grosse and impossible to be justified that I should suspect any mans fidelity that should tell me he had rendred a satisfying reason why this should be And this is your case at this time Ibid. C. Whether she be infallible or no she is like to be wiser than any private man And this point cannot be in controversie with a wise man and therefore here is no petitio principii Answ This is a rare way of replying when a discourse hath been proved guilty of a petitio principii to say 't is impossible it should and when a thing is denied to say it cannot be in controversie But Sir I shall yeild you the Church may be wiser than any private man yet not conceive it to follow unlesse she be also infallible that when a private man and the Church differ she must alwaies be in the right He that is much wiser than another may yet in some particular be mistaken when that other is in the right yea and may be advised and reformed in such a particular by one that is not so wise as he This you may apply to the matter in hand not so farre as to preferre the authority of any one man before the Church in generall but onely so as not to pronounce it infallible I might tell you farther that a member of the Church of England assenting fully to the doctrine of that Church and so discharging the duty of a private man in preferring the judgement of the Church whereof he is a member before his owne judgement may yet doubt of some things affirmed by the Church of Rome and not make the comparison between a private mans judgement and the judgement of the Church but onely betwixt one particular Church and another But after all this I might have spared any or all these Answers and doe now onely desire you to looke back upon the place and you will soone see what no ground is to be found there of your Annotation Ibid. D. If you have no evidence that 't is Gods pleasure that your Church should be infallible nor can have you say true but this latter is denied Answ 'T is easie to deny conclusions still But if you will either answer the arguments which have proved there is none or produce any such evidence that it is infallible you shall be victorious indeed Ib. E. This argument which the Inquirer impugnes is an argument of his owne making and none of ours yet for all that the argument is not like a Ballad as good backward as forward as M. Chillingworth putting it a little differently from the Inquirer would have it Answ If you had pleased to disclaime and not defend this argument at the first you might have saved us some paines and if you will yet promise me that no man shall out of M. Knots Book make use of this argument any more I will be very well content that argument shall be no longer insisted on yet must tell you my opinion from my owne expresse knowledge that they which read that Book before 't was confuted by M. Chillingworth did verily believe that that argument to prove an infallible judge taken from the topick of Gods goodnesse was M. Knots master-piece and the founation on which the maine weight of his structure was supported C. 19. Answ to C. 19. A. In a Respondent there can be no such thing as Petitio principii Answ We have shewed you that a Respondent may so ill behave himself that there may As for example when a man hath used Arguments to prove that you have been guilty of begging the Question For you to despise and not take notice of the arguments and to say onely that there can be no such thing is the very thing called Petitio principii Ib. B. But we againe deny it is Petitio principii and the contrary ought to be proved Answ It is clearly proved in the place and not to consider the proofs but to deny the conclusion is another guilt of that sophism C. 20. Answ to C. 20. A. If the Enquirers meaning be as you put it it makes nothing at all against us nor needs any Answer But Chillingworth goes farther and saies that many of the simpler sort amongst us believe Truth upon no better grounds than others believe Falshood and yet our simpler sort believe Truths upon all the motives that yours doe and somewhat more Answ That that is his Lordships meaning is plaine viz That he that denies your infallibility and yet uses his best reason to seeke if it be true will be in as safe a condition as he that believes it and searches not And if this be nothing against you I shall hope this quarrell is nearer an end then ever I had thought to see it And then sure many of us shall be capable of that charity which you bestow upon your owne for I am confident what we doe we doe upon search and use of our best reason and yet that we deny your infallibility you are sufficiently assured C. 21. Answ to C. 21. A. He might be secretly obstinate and yet both he and we conceive the contrary Answ 'T is true he might But yet sure you that believe he was not obstinate cannot believe that the punishment of obstinacy should belong to him but must either thinke God unjust or else believe him safe in the same degree that you think him not obstinate And this is all I required from you C. 22. Answ to C. 22. A. Every implicite assent must be resolved lastly into an explicite or else there will be an infinite regression for every implicite presupposes something in which it is involved or implicite Answ I beseech you observe the nature of this Annotation of yours You say in your Apology that one implicite Faith doth not containe another I proved that false by this instance that supposing I believed by an implicite Faith that you
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 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 Coâ—ffeteau have exâ—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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 't is 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 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 onely 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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
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 't was 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 't is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 onely 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 't is cleare that the Praetorian is the onely 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 't is 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