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
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
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
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
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
Ch. 9. Answ to Chap. 9. Section 1 Your answer to the 9. and 10. Sections signifies a great deale viz that you were so put to it by the conviction of his Lordships argument that to dis-intangle your selfe you have ventured to vent a peice of very severe divinity which my charity to you makes me hope you will not justifie and if you will yet your no argument produced gives me nothing to answer nor otherwise to reply then by denying as mercifully and obligingly to the world as you doe cruelly affirme viz that without succession sufficient from Saint Peter there is no succession sufficient to prove a Church or a succession of Pastours Ecclesiasticall and this is so strange a newes to our eares who were confident that what ever you deeme of the other two parts of three of the Christian world at this present you had allowed liberty to Apostles to ordaine Churches as well as and without succession from Saint Peter and indeed that that which in the second and eighth line of your Chapter you call the Greeke Church might have beene acknowledged to be a Church in the seventh that had you not said it in the most evident tearmes None beside Rome can pretend this and without this one none can be sufficient to prove a Church c. had there been any way imaginable but this to answer his Lordship's argument I should never have thought this had beene your meaning till I see you againe owne this severe doctrine I shall not take paines to confute it and when I see that I must say that his Lordship presumed you had not been so bloudily minded when he proposed to you the argument in those two Sections Section 2 And yet after all this I doubt not but with a little change his Lordships argument will still hold against you even after you have ventured on such strange practices to secure your self from it Thus suppose you had evinced that the succession from S. Peter were infallible and so proved the Roman Church to be so because none else pretended to succeed S. Peter yet this can be no sufficient ground of belief to the ignorant who cannot have any infallible foundation of belief that the Greek Church doth not pretend from S. Peter whether by S. Mark at Alexandria who might be ordained by S. Peter whose right hand they say he was in the penning of the Gospell or by Evodius at Antioch where S. Peter was Bishop seven yeares as your owne Baronius or by any other or to the ignorant it matters not by no other known way and even to the learned it is but an accidentall argument because if any other company had likewise claimed Succession from Saint Peter as they of Antioch do it had overthrown all that probation nay it is but an arbitrary argument which the adversary can confute by but denying for if any society of Christians so called would pretend to be from Saint Peter some other way then by succeeding him at Rome or submitting to his government your Church could make use of it no longer Section 3 As for that which you adde in a word of answer to the 10 Sect. that what ever Churches claime unto succession shall be alleadged it can no way evacuate that of Rome if it be applied to his Lordship's argument it is absolutely false for if Rome's claime to Infallibility together and to succession to Saint Peter be to be proved by this because none else pretends to it which is the argument which his Lordship here confutes then sure any other Churches claime or pretending to it will evacuate that claime or title that by that argument is pretended and contrary to this there is yet nothing shewed To the 11. Section Chap. 10. What mercy God will use in pardoning the errorurs of those men who doe seeke sincerely and yet misse makes nothing at all against the ordinary provision and necessity of a guide because those misses or mistakings be cases extraordinary Besides I would know why any pardon should need for such innocent errours which be defects involuntary and so can be no crimes wherefore me thinks the discourse of our Enquirer in this Section is not coherent C. 10. Answ To the Chap. 10. Section 1 His Lordship's argument Sect. 11. is very strong against the collecting a necessity of an Infallible guide for the interpreting of Scripture from the topick of God's goodnesse by proposing another way of reconciling God's providence with his goodnesse in this matter which if it may be done concludes that other unnecessary viz. by mentioning a doctrine of more Evangelicall oeconomy in which errours may be reconcileable with mercy when God doth give grace to the diligent seeker to finde out truth or by this dilemma that without such an infallible guide upon the use of Reason in the interpretation of Scripture and search for tradition God will either give grace to finde what is so sought or pardon if he misse and so though it stand not with Gods goodnesse to damne him for every errour to whom he hath assigned no infallible way to finde out all truth yet to him that is confident that God will not damne any man upon such tearmes as the servant laid to his charge when he told him he was an austere man c. to him that teaches not such legall bloudy doctrine against God this argument of the Romanists will not be pressing at all this expedient of the Gospell-grace or Gospell-mercy being as fit for the turne of infirme soules as an infallible guide would be as indeed the state of imperfection wherein we are placed is as fit for our turnes when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Gospell is revealed and proportioned to it as Adam's Paradise of Supernaturall all-sufficient strength and innocence would be Section 2 To all which all that you returne is only this that all this is nothing against the ordinary provision and necessity of a guide because those misses or mistakings are cases extraordinary To which I answer First that if it were supposed that against the ordinary provision of a guide the argument were not of force yet sure it might against the necessity of it and then that is all that is pretended to by his Lordship and that which alone is destructive to you and therefore 't is strange you should couple them together as so sociall things which are so distant and separable for sure though Evangelicall grace and mercy doe not exclude an ordinary provision of an infallible way but leave it in medio that God may if he will make that ordinary provision yet notwithstanding this it followes not that such a provision is required or nenessary There is a wide distance betwixt possible if God please and necessary to the vindicating of God's goodnesse now against the latter onely it is that his Lordship argues and is not at all concern'd in th' other and therefore I shall not need to examine whether the first be
true it being so cleare that the second hangs so loose from it and will alone serve our turnes as well Section 3 But then Secondly I professe not at all to understand what you meane by that reason of your assertion because the misses or mistakings be cases extraordinary for first how can it be denied in this imperfect infirme state of mortality that now we are in but that errours and mistakings are very ordinary That they are common there is no doubt and as little that they are agreeable to that order or course that is now among men and to you that say in the next words that you know not why such defects should need any pardon and to us that acknowledge that they that reforme all other and pray daily demitte debita shall through Christ have pardon of course for these sure they cannot passe for extraordinary cases in either sense for that would imply that now under the Gospell it should be ordinary or regular to punish involuntary errours which you say can be no crimes and extraordinary either for us to commit or for God to pardon them Section 4 But then Secondly if it were true that these misses c. were cases extraordinary yet can I not see how these words can be annext to your former as a proofe of their being answer to his Lordship because how extraordinary soever the misses may be the pardon for misses may doe as well for you as an infallible guide unlesse you meane somewhat else by ordinary cases then what my capacity hath reacht to and till you please to instruct me better I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by exercising my charity in not judging what I doe not understand invite yours to instruct me that I may Section 5 As for the Coherence of his Lordships discourse you have little temptation to doubt of that when you have said that he conceives that such errours or missings should need pardon for to that all that he saith is coherent It seemes you are not of his opinion for the truth of that and whether is in the right I shall not now examine or enlarge to any so accidentall and extrinsecall discourse but onely tell you that believing as you doe you ought to have said not true when you mistooke and said not coherent To the 12. Section Chap. 11. To this charge we answer that our proofes of a sure guide are themselves also sure and what proofes those are we before have signified Chap. 8. Sect. 8. and before Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Ch. 11. Answ to the 11. Chap. Your next Chapter being but a reference to what you had before said and that before examined by us my answer shall be answerably onely a reference also without taking more paines to put you in minde how unfit your Verba signorum which you there affirmed to be motives of credibility are now to proceed or commence infallible proofes for those are they which his Lordship's argument requires in his 12. Section To the 13 14 15 16 Sections Chap. 12. The Infallibility of Popes or Councels is no point of doctrine necessary to be knowne distinctly before any resolution of faith can be made because it is sufficient to learne out of Catechismes and the common practice of the Church what is to be believed Neither is there any more probable feare of missing which is the See Apostolique and which the Churches living in communion with it then there is of a Subjects being ignorant to what Kingdome he belongs and as for doctrine of beliefe it is found out as readily and as surely as the other by those meanes of instruction which we have signified already As for the Simony objected Sect. 14. it is no impediment of his power so he be received peaceably by the Church and not 〈◊〉 in question for it The like may be said of the decrees and definitions of Councels together with the sense or meaning of them And by this the 15 and the 16 Sections are answered C. 12. Answ to the 12. Chap. Section 1 His Lordship in quest after your infallible ground of faith tooke into consideration the Popes Infallibility Sect. 13. the Infallibility of a Councell by him called Sect. 14. and produced arguments I conceive convincing against each Section 2 To these your onely answer is that neither of these Infallibilities are necessary to be knowne distinctly before any resolution of faith can be made and you give your reasons for it because c. which is in plaine tearmes to grant and prove the thing which his Lordship desires and proves for if they were the ground of faith they would be necessary to be knowne distinctly before any resolution of faith the foundation being absolutely necessary to the superstruction in materiall edifices and in intellectuall the distinct knowledge of a ground of faith being as necessary to a distinct resolution of faith as the ground it selfe which workes not upon any man's understanding the seat of this Faith any further then it is knowne This concession of yours being all that is demanded of you at this time we shall not need insist on nor debate farther what influence the case of Simony may have upon the Popes Infallibility If he be infallible at all He or He and a Councell you say 't is not necessary to ground faith which is the onely use we have of it in this present enquity for it seemes the Catechismes or common practice of the Church are sufficient to teach what is to be believed Section 3 What Is the Popes and Councels Infallibility made unnecessary and is a Catechisme and common practice of the Church sufficient for the grounding of faith infallibly Certainly we are growne very low and are supposed men of very moderate desires if it be thought we shall thus be content with the Infallibility of a Catechisme For whatsoever is sufficient for the grounding of faith infallibly remember infallibly must come in for otherwise 't is not to his Lordship's discourse must it selfe be acknowledged infallible Which if you shall please to affirme of any of your Catechismes as I shall first desire to be directed which Catechisme it is that of Trent or what others that I may not mistake in the choice of my Guide so I shall make bold to demand whence this Infallibility or authority of this prime guide of faith is to be fetcht It will be sure from the authority of the Pope or Councell of that time when 't was compiled and confirmed and then still we fall backe to the infallibility of the Pope or Councell which it seemes in the last resolve is become necessary againe to the grounding of Faith and so againe must be knowne before any resolution of Faith be built even upon the Catechisme which was the thing you just now denied As for the common practice of the Church that that should be a ground of Faith or sufficient for us to learne by it what is to be believed besides that this
Gregory the seventh that there is but one name under Heaven that of the Pope to whose Seate whosoever paid not obedience became presently an Idolater and a Pagan and if you will undertake to defend this I will reward you by adventuring to justifie the other That speech of Gilbert Bishop of Rhemes that after was Pope shall with me be sufficient to expiate for either Audaciter dicam c. I shall boldly say that the Bishop of Rome himselfe if he have offended any Brother and will not heare the admonitions of the Church ought to passe for an Heathen and a Publican Section 12 But all these are but trifles if they be compared with other knowne passages of story how Stephanus was reprehended by Cyprian Liberius by Athanasius Honorius almost by all Christians of no lesse crimes then Heresy it selfe Or because that is but one piece of carnality and there be many others beside that as probable and considerable errours and carnalities I beseech you review either in your memory or in Onufrius and Platina the lifes and manners of the Popes the incests and sorceries and cruelties of Alexander the 6. the Idolatrous sacrifices of Marcellinus Calestin's using the helpe of Magitians and Devils to come to the Papacy and then tell me your opinion whether Popes may not erre and when you have replyed by way of distinction of manners from Doctrines be then pleased to answer Nilus by some more satisfactory way then by calling him pratling Greeke this question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how it fals out that the Pope can deny God in his workes but cannot by any meanes in his words what charme or amulet kept his tongue inerrable when his whole body was subject to those darts of Satan and when you have done that I beseech you to phansy to your selfe what kinde of crimes you conceive those Popes would have committed if they had beene fallible Section 13 I shall not enlarge this supernumerary trouble any farther or expect your answer to every of these passages in Bookes if I have wronged any by misciting I shall be glad to heare of it and if they make not all together one probable argument or proofe of the fallibility of the Pope I beseech you pardon me for this unneedfull importunity To the 17 18 Sections Chap. 11. I noted before that the knowledge of all these particulars recited by the Enquirer are no way necessary to the Believer and therefore both this Author and Baron the Scotch Minister struggle in vaine when as with such care and vehemency they presse them against us I conclude then that in the Church of God Councels doe not multiply doubts but diminish them C. 11. Answ to Chap. 11. Section 1 To the 17 18 Sections the answer is a reference againe to a note dropt from you before which truly I should not have been likely to apply to this businesse in hand if you had not given me that seasonable admonition Your note I conceive referres to your discourse in the precedent Chapter how Catechismes and the common practice of the Church teach all what is to be believed And as then the Popes infallibility so now that of Councels is unnecessary to be knowne and by that meanes all these particulars also for if the infallibility of Councels were necessary to be knowne as it must be if they were deciders of questions then all these particulars mentioned by his Lordship would be necessary to be knowne also because they are incident to every Councell and the knowledge of its infallibility because of its decisions and even being it selfe depends on these Section 2 And the fitnesse of Councels to decide Controversies being the thing his Lordship had now in hand and which Baron treats on when he uses the like arguments sure neither of them struggle in vaine but you rather who 't was thought in reason would have beene no wiser then your fellowes and so would have asserted that fitnesse of Councels have become a very slippery Wrestler gliding out of their hands when their arguments began to lay hold on you and after such an escape as this I confesse 't is matter of wonder to me how you could thinke fit to end with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 triumph presupposing victory and victory resistance and none of these here are to be heard of but onely a conclusion that what his Lordship had said and proved he had said falsely a petitio principii againe that Councels doe not diminish doubts but multiply them Which proposition and proofe of his Lordships having no need of defending any farther I shall onely interpose one caution which I desire may be observed in his Lordships discourse that it being supposed that Councels are dot deciders of controversies meaning thereby infallible ones they be yet of good authority and use in the Church to helpe to decide them and notwithstanding all the doubts that his Lordship saith they doe multiply be onely denied by us the priviledge of infallibility not that other of being very usefull and venerable in a lower degree and such the Councell may be even next to the Word of God it selfe To the 19. Section Chap. 13. He maintaines here a strange paradox and one very improbable namely that to define any thing of new is to bestow upon the Devill one path more for us to walke in towards him If you aske why he tells you because before the definition made it was lawfull to hold either side but after it is damnable Belike then with this Author the manifestation of divine truths is the high way to damnation but I suppose few men are of his minde Certainly most are of opinion that every such verity we learne had rather beene a new steppe towards Heaven because knowledge of things divine doe enable men for the attaining of salvation and therefore the Apostles by their instructing our understandings in them shewed the world so many more paths to Heaven It may be indeed that by accident minds blowne up with selfe-conceit may by their resisting such revealed truths take an occasion to transgresse but that is their owne faults not the fault of them that teach or of the verities that are declared and therefore this cavill of the Enquirers against the definitions of Councels was very frivolous It should seems he had a great minde to be quarrelling with Councels that was content to take such a frivolous exception as this against them C. 13. Answ to Chap. 13. Section 1 Your great quarrell to his Lordships 19. Sect. comes now to be considered wherein the paradox in and improbability of his Lordships conclusion will not be so great if you observe but one thing that the matter of definitions of Councels which he speaks of is not divine truths as the following words suppose them and upon that presse them with absurdity but as I conceive such things as have beene defined by Councels being not before defined by Scripture and so though affirmed to
be truths yet not as divine truths at least of which it is not infallibly true that they are so of which nature I might instance at large in your Councels of Lateran Constance and Trent for to the antient generall Councels I confesse to beare such reverence that I shall challenge any of you to exceed me Section 2 Now to cleare his Lordship from the guilt of a frivolous quarrell at this time I must adde that in such decisions of Councels the worth of the matter and inconvenience of leaving it undecided are the maine things worth considering and so it is possible that the decision may be such that it may tend First to some publique end whether the clearing of obscure Scripture or the recovering of some venerable and usefull practice or doctrine of the Church Secondly to the setling and establishing of peace by interposing such a judgement which may probably sway with both pretenders And in these and the like cases the advantages being so intrinsecall to the decision and withall so great the inconvenience mentioned by his Lordship ought not to prevaile to the disparaging of Councels because though it be an inconvenience yet is it over-weighed with other conveniences and therefore the argument I confesse is not infinitely or unlimitedly true Section 3 But then the case may be that the matter of the definition is of no such great weight or use that there is no such assurance acquirable from Scripture that either side is true nay it may be audacious and untrue and as little from any other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that either side will peaceably sit downe and acquiesce in the decision but in matters of opinion probably prove opiniatour and so the decision will then rather widen the breach then compose it Section 4 In this case or when indeed in other respects the ballance is even set the good of defining counterpoised with the ill then there is place for his Lordship's argument and 't is true that then upon that present supposition that before decision 't were lawfull to hold either way and damnable after it were uncharitable to define my reason is because when charity doth not move to doe a thing i. e. when no advantage shall arise to mankinde by it but on the other side charity shall advise to absteine some one though accidentall hurt being foreseen to arise on the other side there to doe that thing is uncharitable Section 5 Thus have we heard of an expression of Bishop Tunstall of Durham who died in your communion that if he had beene Chaplaine to Pope Innocent the Fourth he would have begg'd on his knees that he would not define Transubstantiation as knowing it would tend to the breach of the peace of the Church and thus in matters of controversy about Predestination c. you know the Pope hath in charity abstein'd to define and the Apostles or whosoever else were the composers of it in their Creed defined but a few things and generally those Churches that have avoided multiplying of articles have by wise men beene thought the most Christian because the most charitable and even in matters of rites and humane lawes the rule is that they must not be multiplyed unnecessarily and the reason is because they would consequently multiply snares on mens consciences as unnecessarily which is just his Lordship's reason in this place Section 6 Which you will rather guesse because 't is cleare his Lordship speakes of those things in which before a Councell hath determined it is lawfull to hold either way perfectly lawfull not excluding also that other circumstance that I have added viz when there is no reall gaine expectable by defining And when the those things are by his Lordship so limited and restrained I know not how to make up your paradox you could thinke fit to change the phrase from those things c. to any thing and after to divine truths and things divine and verities in generall when 't is improbable that he did I am sure very possible and probable that he did not speake of any such as are new steps toward Heaven but such as onely fill mens braines puffe up their phansyes and oft make men to thinke themselves pious men for being of such opinions and to neglect workes of piety and charity as not neare so considerable and so are to them even that believe them accidentally pathes to damnation much more if the doctrine of the decisions of Councels be to be extended to whatsoever uselesse definitions to those that doe not believe them Section 7 Having said thus much for defence of this supposed paradox of his Lordships I must desire once for all these two things from the Reader which Equity will require of him to grant me First that his Lordship's arguments be not extended infinitely but onely be supposed to undertake to conclude as farre as is necessary to the present matter and no farther an example of which this Chapter hath afforded you Secondly that his arguments being by him brought onely to enervate the Infallibility of the Roman Church be so cautiously taken as that they be made use of onely to that end and not at all inclined or wrested to the lessening the authority of the Church or Councels universall for this would be very unjust and ill inferred there being a wide difference betwixt authority and infallibility as also betwixt universall and Roman though by reason of the manner of his Lordships discourse being according to the designe wholly destructive of the one and not assertive of the other the Reader may perhaps be tempted to thinke otherwise and therefore I thought it not impertinent thus to fortify him against this prejudice To the 20 21 22 Sections Chap. 14. It is true we condemne some doctrines which generall Councels have not condemned and we have great reason for it because though Councels be one rule of faith yet not the onely Againe these we hold to be infallible because they are the Compendium and quintessence of the Church and the body representative thereof as a King and the three States be of the whole Kingdome The cause of Pope John the 22. is cleared sufficiently by Ciacconius in his life by Caeffeteau in his learned answer to Plessye's iniquity and by many others and therefore needs not be argued any more I grant it a point of faith that the soules of the just shall see God before the last judgement and doe deny that this doctrine was generally contradicted at any time Neverthelesse I doe not know it to be of faith that all of them shall enjoy the same vision before that great day and that none of them shall be detained in secret receptacles as the Antients hold till they together with their bodies shall be compleatly purged in the great fire of the worlds conflagration as I have treated elsewhere It was not needfull that Councels should define in tearmes their owne immunity from errour because a Councell both in substance and
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
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
and both of us have charity enough to cover in each other a multitude of errours Section 31 Your catalogue of Sects in this Kingdome I shall not goe about to examine but onely tell you that your infallibility hath beene lyable to such misadventures also and had not the charme or skill of keeping all within its circle if it had there would then at this time have beene no body to dispute against you Section 32 In the close of your long Chapter I wonder you should be so covetous or ambitious of lengthning it one page farther by charging on his Lordship that he charges you that because you pretend to be infallible you have lesse reason to prescribe to others whereas his Lordship charges no such thing upon you but onely saith that she that confesses she may erre is not so chargeable with any fault as they that pretend they cannot which is quite another matter Section 33 To conclude when the businesse is thus laid by you that your infallibility is not yet proved to be onely pretended and yet you have no other ground of saying so but because you say 't is not though all his Lordship's arguments for so may Sections have driven all to that conclusion and never an one of them is yet answered by you it will be a most unreasonable thing and a sound petitio principii againe to affirme without any one word of proofe that that infallibility is a reality and so will not keepe you from mending whereas nothing can keepe you from mending if this doe not this contemning of arguments against you and affirming magisterially without any To the 29 Section Chap. 17. This opinion saith he of damning so many and this custome of burning so many this breeding up of those who know nothing else in any point of religion yet to be in readinesse to cry To the fire with him To hell with him All these be empty words as we have shewed before As for our breeding up of men I thinke we doe it as well as any of our neighbours doe and by the way must tell you that we doe not take children from their parents onely to breed them up in our religion we doe not offer that hard measure either to Turkes or Jewes but hold it an act flatly against the law of nature an impious violation of Parents right which ought to be held sacred and lastly away of propagation of religions wholy violent and Vn-Christian so farre are we from propagating our religion by force and if all others with whom we have to doe had beene of that mind it had beene better with them for God hath not blessed that way forasmuch as by sad experience we have found that none have proved greater scourges to their King and Country then such as have had that sort of breeding given them and contrary to their parents will beene violently seduced in their youth and this is no secret but knowne to all the three Kingdomes to their cost But enough of this for it is a distastfull businesse C. 17. Answ to C. 17. Section 1 To his Lordship's 29 paragraph you have no returne but that these are empty words as you have formerly shewed and I feare we have shewed they are not but should be very glad to be mistaken and can truly say that I wish vehemently that your judgment were right in this matter But upon occasion of his Lordship's mention of your breeding up those that know nothing else in religion To cry to the fire to hell with him you are pleased to take occasion of some liberty in shewing what good breeding you bestow upon men in your Church and so divert to a complaint against those that take children from their parents c. and are somewhat passionate and tragicall on that subject but this being nothing to his Lordship's words or argument I desire to see that better answered by you before I will enter any new combat about so extrinsecall an impertinency And so enough of this also for what ever 't is 't is nothing to the matter of present handling To the 30 Section Chap 18. If it were granted saith the Enquirer that because it agrees not with the goodnesse of God to let me want a guide infallible and that the Church of Rome were that one yet if that teach any thing contrary to God's goodnesse I am not to receive her doctrine for the same cause they would have me receive it it being as good an argument This guide teaches things contrary to God's goodnesse therefore it is not appointed by God as to say it is agreeable to God's goodnesse there should be a guide therefore there is one So he The Enquirer seekes to delude us with a fallacy by altering his tearmes for in the first place he speakes of a thing contrary to God's goodnesse not absolutely but according to his understanding In the second place he speakes of it not as it is in his understanding but as it is simply in it selfe which is a thing quite different from the former for many things may be in his understanding thus or thus or as he saith contrary to God's goodnesse which in themselves are not so but rather quite otherwise for indeed it is no good consequence to argue on this sort This in my understanding is contrary to God's goodnesse therefore it is so because your understanding is subject to errour and therefore some things may seeme to it to be which are not Chillingworth who followeth this Author's footsteps argues after the selfe same manner and hath beene answered elsewhere by himselfe I grant then the consequence when as he saith this guide teaches somewhat contrary to God's goodnesse therefore it is not appointed for a guide But I deny the Antecedent and afterwards when he proves it saying it seemes so to my understanding therefore it is so I deny the consequence and admit the Antecedent At least saith he if it seeme so to my understanding whether in the meane time it be so or not I am not to receive it because I am to be guided by my owne reason and understanding If it seeme so to your understanding after such time as you have weighed all things as rightly as you can I grant it But if it seeme so onely before you have done that then I deny it for then it is not to be followed but forsaken or reformed if it be found erroneous as in this case of yours it is For in this case your understanding is to consult other understandings wiser then your owne if you can finde any such and according to that is to determine of the matter and not to rely wholly upon your owne single understanding But if you doe so you will finde your owne single understanding was deceived and that the guide of which we treate teacheth nothing that is against the goodnesse of God For it is to be supposed her understanding is brighter and more capacious then yours and therefore is to be
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
deny with obstinacy the infallibility of the Church of Christ or any other Article we are willing to beleive yet neverthelesse how safe he was we know not For a man may be obstinate and yet not thinke so though he may peradventure have just reason to suspect it It is not likely that Arius for example or any other Arch-heretique did thinke themselves to be obstinate although it is not to be doubted but they were for in the heart of Man there be many darke corners in which obstinacy may lurke and be unseen many passions that doe corrupt the intention which without great diligence are not espied especially in Men that are Lovers of the world or be possessed with prejudices hefore hand For which the wise Man wisely said Verebar omnia opera mea I distrusted all my workes And so hath every Man reason to doe in this universall corruption of nature and manners The 34 Sect. hath no difficulty in it which may require an Answer Chap. 21. Answ to Chap. 21. Section 1 Your Answer to the 33 Sect. is very strange you first grant very freely that you beleive that his Lordship did not deny with obstinacy the infallibility of your Church and yet in your next words you interpose against him that a man may be obstinate and yet not thinke so and on that ground your Answer to that Section But sure Sir whosoever else maybe obstinate or what grounds soever he may have to suspect he is yet this cannot by you be said of him at the same time when you acknowledge he is not obstinate Section 2 I beseech you compare your Answer with that Paragraph of his Lordships again and tell me whether this would not be very strange dealing Suppose a Friend should make this Syllogisme for you an honest Catholique ought not to be denied the liberty of this Towne but this Gentleman is an honest Catholique ergo and to the major I should answer by silence i. e. consent and to the minor that you are an honest Catholique I am willing to believe Neverthelesse whether you ought to have the liberty of this Towne I know not for you may be a dishonest Catholique and yet not thinke so Section 3 I pray how would you like this way of discourse would you not first tell me that I did in effect deny the conclusion i. e. make scruple how you should be dealt with after I had acknowledged both that all honest Catholiques ought to be used as you desire and that you are an honest Catholique And Secondly that I did suck in my concession of your being an honest Catholique assoone as I had made it for if that Reply belong to me then is it doubted whether I am such or no. Be pleased to compare the cases and this is directly your answer Section 4 What you meane by the no-difficulty in the 34 Sect. which you confesse and which therefore requires no Answer I doe not perfectly know but shall suppose you meane that there is nothing of doubt or question in it and then I am sure I have nothing to reply but that by the same reason the 33 Section must be granted also for the medium is the same to inferre both those conclusions To the 35 36 Sections Chap. 22. To beleive saith he implicitly what God would have believed is also to beleive implicitly what the Church teacheth if this doctrine be one of those which God commands to be believed My Answer to this is negative and my reason of deniall is because one implicite faith doth not containe another but it is an explicite assent and no other that containes within it an implicite To the point then I answer that if that same generall beliefe which he falsly calls Implicite be sincere and cordiall we then grant that it may as he saith implicitly containe the other But what will he deduce from thence what that all who pretend to believe on that manner doe it sincerely It is improbable for if it were sincere it would in knowing Men not stay within the narrow compasse of an implicite assent but quickly dilate it selfe and become explicite Indeed this great profession of believing in a preparation of minde all which God would have believed and goes no farther seemes in most Men to be but feigned and delusory and so no great trust can be reposed in it Chap. 22. Answ to Chap. 22. Section 1 The force of the argument Sect. 35. you deny upon a shew of some subtlety because say you one implicite faith doth not containe another This you affirme but afford us not the least offer of proof for the affirmation I must therefore beseech you to looke over your principle againe Suppose me to believe by an implicite faith that you are an honest Man may not that beliefe containe in it an implicite beliefe to every proposition by you asserted Nay what need this circumlocution is not his Lordships argument most cleare being put into a Syllogisme Section 2 If God commands the Church to be believed then he that implicitly believes all the commands of God implicitly believes that the Church is to be believed but God commands the Church to be believed ergo See now which Proposition you will deny the major is evident the minor I presume you will not deny whosoever else doth and then I beseech you be good to the conclusion Section 3 But that it seemes you will grant too but suspect that that generall beliefe is not sincere and cordiall But that I am sure is not for us to dispute of or discerne and I am as sure 't is nothing to the case where 't is supposed to be sincere and if it be not no Man ever thinkes it can be relyed on To the 37 38 39. Sections Chap. 23. Admitting the formost of these Sections as probable To the 38 I answer that as some are made obstinate by pride so againe othersome lazinesse detaines in ignorance But what of that I grant you that it is not pride in you or any Man never to assent till you find good reason for it but rather wisdome Neverthelesse it may be pride which blinds a Man and hinders him from the seeing a just reason of assenting yea even then when it is not onely perceptible but also easie to be perceived for the eye of the proud sees not the truth but overlooks it The 39 Paragraph containeth in it no businesse considerable in the matter of controversie between us Chap. 23. Answ to Chap. 23. Section 1 The 38 Sect. you admit as probable and now methinks I understand your Dialect somewhat better then before I did Doth not admitting as probable signifie not understanding Truly it had been more ingenuously done to have used that other phrase for the truth is it might have been done at this time without any disparagement to your understanding for in the beginning of this Section there was at the first Edition clearly an errour in the print It should be thus as
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
such debate with you Ib. C. Neither Arius Nestorius nor others could peep out for saying any thing against the doctrine received How then could this Dionysius have escaped if he had adventured any thing against all the Orthodox Answ You are very much given in stead of answering Reasons to deny Conclusions and if that were backt with Reason 't were yet very improper for a Respondent which you told us was your office at this time But then secondly in this matter you know that neither I nor his Lordship have said that all the Orthodox were for the Millennium And yet thirdly if they had yet the denying the Millennium being a more tolerable opinion than those other of Arius and Dionysius's opposition of the Chiliasts might passe more unresisted than Arius or Nestorius could doe Ib. D. Photius tells us there were Answers given though he recites them not and Schottus in his Notes hath resolved them Answ I will not take the paines to see or examine whether Photius say there were Answers If he recites them not I shall not be much moved with such blanke Papers The truth is this hath been the way to satisfie the hardest Arguments that ever were brought and confuting whole Books at once by having it given out that they are confuted or that Answers are made to them when what those answers are is not so much as intimated this is a very cheap way of confutations As for Schottus's Solutions if he have any they prevaile little with us I am sure they will not conclude that Photius foresaw or would have counted them of any moment to alter his opinion which was the onely thing I there had occasion to take notice of Ib. E. Though Philoponus cite but one Epistle yet elswhere he numbers him among the famous Doctors Basil Gregory c. thereby insinuating he had left workes as they had and not one single Epistle to Polycarpus This is but a conjecture but such both we and all must use in matters of fact and when we are to walke through darke passages of Antiquity Answ Sir you cited three places out of Philoponus to prove that Dionysius Arcopagita wrote those workes now extant bearing his name This testimony I told you would be nothing to your purpose unlesse it testified if not all those Bookes yet of some one wherein he wrote against the Chiliasts But this I shewed you was not done because those places mention nothing of his but an Epistle of Polycarpus and in that I advertized you there was nothing against the Chiliasts This it seems you cannot deny but being willing to say something say that elswhere Philoponus numbers him amongst the famous Doctours c. I have not now leasure to read over all Philoponus for that elswhere though I have reason to thinke that you that before cited the Chapters in Philoponus so punctually would have had the same charity to me again if it had suted w th your interests considering how little can be concluded from what you now cite out of him Dionys was numbred among the famous Doctors Basil Gregory c. doth it follow thence that all the workes now extant under his name were his or particularly that wherein he opposes the Chiliasts Nay would not a man rather conclude from that pretended testimony of Philoponus that the Authour under the name of Dionysius Arâ—op was some Writer about S. Basils or S. Gregories time with whom he is there consorted and that is somewhat later then Dionysius in the Scripture Nay if Philoponus really meant him would he not rather have given him the title of an Apostolicall Person than of a famous Doctor such as S. Basil c. As for the insinuation which you mention from this of Philoponus if it did conclude as you would have it that he left Workes as they did and not onely one single Epistle yet sure 't will not so much as once insinuate that they were the Works that we have under his name much lesse that peculiarly which opposes the Chiliasts least of all that 't was the Apostolicall Dionysius that really wrote all these But you confesse these but a conjecture and therefore sure 't will be a very weake prop to hold up infallibility especially when the conjecture if it should be supposed true would tell us that which we had not before been told from you that the Chiliasts doctrine was taught and so capable of being confuted so early as the Apostles times for with them this Dionysius lived You conclude that such conjectures as this you and all must use in matters of fact c. To which I answer that 't is possible you may be forced to it on supposition that you think your self obliged to vindicate your Churches Infallibility for 't is very possible there may be no better then such conjectures to sustaine it But believe me Sir I will never maintaine cause as long as God keeps me in my right wits which hath no better conjectures than these to sustaine it And for matters of fact so long agoe they are of all things in the World the unfittest to be believed upon such conjectures Because nothing but an authentick expresse witnesse can be ground of faith for such There is no matter of fact done yesterday but may if we will goe by conjectures I am sure as good and as probable as yours here be related 10000 waies for whatsoever may be some bold Affirmer may conjecture was and the more antient and more darke the passage was the more liberty there will be for such Conjecturers because the lesse possibility to confute any of them Ib. F. Salvian doth not refuse to condemne the Arian heresie but some of the Gothick Arians for it as men not guilty of the malice of it Answ If you looke againe you will find that both his Lordship and I say that Salvian refused to condemne the Arian Hereticks not heresie and this it seems you confesse with the restraint of Gothick Arians and this will serve our turnes perfectly and so we shall not quarrell about that but hope from your owne confession that he that is not willing to condemne all Protestants may escape as well as Salvian even in your censure C. 16. Answ to C. 16. A. The Councell of Constance doth not teach this viz that no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks neither our Doctors hold it as Molanus Becanus Tannerus Layman Coeffecteau Coquaeus and others doe shew us Answ To teach is an equivocall word and may signifie to define by way of position or doctrine in universum In this sense I said it not nor doe now meane it of that Synod that they made any such determination that it should be unlawfull to keep faith with Hereticks or lawfull for any man in any case not to keep it But then to teach may signifie also to teach by example to lay grounds of doctrine for the justifying of such example And thus the Councell of Constance did teach it
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
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