were an honest man this might containe in it an implicite beliefe of every Proposition by you asserted and farther by putting his Lordships affirmation by you denied into a downe right Syllogisme you after your wont answer no proofs but prove against the conclusion And truely your proof is a strange one every implicite assent must be resolved lastly into an explicite Ergo One implicite faith doth not containe another As if you should say Every subordinate cause must be resolved lastly into a first cause Ergò One subordinate cause doth not containe another the Genealogie of Abraham must at last be reduced to God therefore Abraham's Grandfather was not Father to Abraham's Father what sound of reason is there in this arguing The antecedent is the onely thing which you goe about to prove and the consequence that which we deny and therefore I shall need say no more to this Annotation C. 24. Answ to C. 24. A. We meane the fire of this world and that fire we are sure is not in all Countries appointed to burne such as doe dissent from us Answ What not to burne such as dissent in matters of faith Is there any matter of faith which is not required sub poenâ ignis I meane also with you the fire of this world If there be speake out But you have by your next Annotation in effect confest there is not and so by that confuted this for so you adde Ib. B. I make no such distinction Answ i. e. No such distinction that of matters of faith some are required sub periculo ignis some not which is in effect that in respect of that penalty all matters of faith are of the same nature Which is absolutely contrary to that former unlesse in that your meaning were that fire was not in all Countries appointed to burne Dissenters from you i. e. not in those Countries where you had not the power And that wil be but a slender obligation from you if it be acknowledged Ib. C. If you could make that appeare we were satisfied Answ It is made appeare as much as your like Assertion of your selves i. e. by our affirming it But if you will have patience to read on in that place you shall see the point stated and as much of it proved as we have need to assert in this matter Ib. D. In some places we doe make use of the Argument from Mutuall Dissentions but in this it is brought against us Answ This is clearly false for in the 40. Sect. his Lordship there mentions it as an Argument of yours and in that place becomes Respondent gives an Answer to that Argument and that is the ground of the present debate Ib. E. Our Criterion or rule of Faith keeps off dissentions when it is followed yours does not Lutherans and Calvinists follow the same rule and yet dissent and condemne one another ours doe not so but remit the differences to be decided to one and the same judge both exterior and interior Answ I was a proving by the antient Catalogues of Hereticks that there were good store of Hereticks in the world before the Reformation from which it followes that either your infallible Judge was not then in fashion or else that it is not such a soveraigne meanes or antidote against Hereticks you seem to distinguish that your rule keeps off dissentions not alwaies but when it is followed and prove that farther because you remit the differences to be decided to one and the same Judge I might answer that our rule the word of God doth so too at least in matters of faith and that any such dissention at least uncharitable censuring of Dissenters is absolutely against that rule But I conceive that is not the thing that commends a rule as a means to prevent dissentions that they that follow it dissent not for the rule if it be but one rule what ever it is will doe that but that it is able apt to keep men obedient and to restrain them from excesses not following of it Now this is an excellence that these many Catalogues of Heresies proved that you had no right to pretend to and if we have not so neither we are but Partners in this piece of humane infelicity to which as long as we carry flesh about us it will be incident for there must be Heresies among you As for your instance of the Lutherans and Calvinists dissentions and condemning one the other I must tell you that this little concernes the Church of England which alwayes disclaimed the being called by the names or owning the dissentions of Lutheran and Calvinist and professeth only the maintaining of the Primitive Catholike faith and to have no father on earth to impute their faith to I might adde more even for those Lutherans and Calvinists that if they did really follow I say not only professe but follow the same rule they would certainly agree also Ibid. F. I doe not excuse all the Jesuits from the doctrine of resisting Magistrats under colour of Religion killing Kings opposing the Order of Bishops c. nor ought you to have accused all For neither all the Jesuites nor neare all be of that mind but of the quite contrary Bellarmine Valentia Petavius and other Jesuits have written for the Order of Bishops against Salmasius and others but none at all have written against it Neither was the controversie between the Saeculars about that point as it is most evident Answ I have already obeyed your commands and indeed had no necessity to accuse all of that Order in all places It was sufficient to prove the point in hand dissentions among your selves that any considerable number were of those opinions which are the worst that are to be found among our Sâ—ctaries And it seems you cannot in your owne heart excuse all as kinde as you are to them If others in a matter of such moment are of a contrary mind this is an argument not against but for the truth of what is laid to you dissentions after all your infallible judgements For the Jesuites opinion of Bishops I appeale no farther then the disputations in the Councell of Trent and the generall pretensions of that Order to an Independency and absolutenesse from any but their owne superiour and the Pope and this though it allow Bishops over other men yet is sufficiently contrary to the Apostolick institution and practice of having all the Churches and Presbyters in them subjected to them You adde that the controversie of the Saeculars I suppose you mean and Regulars was not about that point i. e. of Episcopacy I did not say it was any farther then thus as the necessity of Confirmation is all one with the necessity of Episcopacy which truely to me seemes to be very neare it and I am sure the businesse was whether the Catholicks in England should have an Ordinary here resident or no and that Ordinary was a Bishop so that though it was not of Episcopacy in
A view of some EXCEPTIONS Which have been made BY A ROMANIST TO The L D Viscount FALKLAND'S DISCOURSE Of the INFALLIBILITY of the CHVRCH of ROME Submitted to the Censure of all sober Christians Together with The Discourse it self of Infallibility prefixt to it The second Edition newly corrected LONDON Printed by J. G. for R. Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane M.DC.L To the READER THE Length and quality of this insuing trouble will seem to have been given the Reader somewhat impertinently if a brief account be not first rendred of the occasion thereof The sad effects of the present differences and divisions of this broken Kingdome having made peace and unity and infallibility such pretious desireable things that if there were but one wish offered to each man among us it would certainly with a full consent be laid out on this one treasure the setting up some Catholick Umpire or Daies-man some visible infallible Definer of Controversies the Pretenders to that Infallibility having the luck to be alone in that pretension have been lookt on with some reverence and by those who knew nothing of their grounds or arguments acknowledged to speake if not true yet seasonably and having so great an advantage upon their Auditors their inclinations and their wishes to finde themselves overcome going along with every argument that should be brought them and so a faire probable entrance by that inlet of their affections to their minds they began to redouble their industry and their hopes and instead of the many particulars of the Romish doctrine which they were wont to offer proofe for in the retaile now to set all their strength upon this one in grosse and by the compendiousnesse of that course to expect a more easie reception then formerly they had met with the very gaines and conveniences that attend this doctrine of theirs if it were true being to flesh and blood which all men have not the skill of putting off mighty Topicks of probability that it is so To discover the danger of this sweet potion or rather to shew how farre it is from being what it it pretends and so to exchange the specious for the sound the made-dish for the substantiall food allowing the Universall Church the authority of an irrefragable testimony and the present age of the Romish Church as much of our beliefe as it hath of conformity with the universall of all ages but not a priviledge of not being able to say false whatsoever it saith and so to set us in the safer though longer way thereby to whet our industry in the chase of truth in stead of assuring our selves that we cannot erre which is not a vertue but an excellency not a grace to be crown'd but a great part of the crowne it selfe reserv'd for another world a felicity but not a duty this Discourse of the Lord Viscount Falkland's was long since designed as also to remove the great scandals and obstacles which have obstructed all way of hope to that universall aime of all true Christians that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catholick harmony which Iamblicus talkes of in the spheares above but would found better in this vault this arch to beare up those spheares the Church below the Universall peace of Christendome for to this nothing is more unreconcileably contrary than pretensions to Infallibility in any part of it all such making it unlawfull either for themselves to mend or others to be endured shutting out all possibility either of compliance or charity or reformation in their owne or mercy to other mens errours What was thus by his Lordship designed in all justice was by an intire lover of peace and truth published in all charity to resist and check a threatning tempest which rising from out present evils was apt if it did not begin to shake some The Printing of this Tract presently provoked an Assertor of that Infallibility to take upon him the answering of it and to complaine that an Answer which had been by the same hand given it formerly was not permitted to attend it into publick This then being a second Care was probably to have arrived to a higher degree of perfection and indeed among the Favourers of that peâ—swasion was cried up for so satisfactory a piece that it was delivered to a Member of the Church of England as unanswerable From him it came to those hands which returned it to the Authour with this ensuing Rejoynder withall intimating that since in his he seemed to wish the same freedome of the Presse which his Lordship had found both the Answer and the Reply should be recommended thither if he pleased After he had detained the Reply some weeks he was pleased to returne it with a protestation That he neither intended nor would permit his to become publicke pretending that I may give you his owne words his Treatise to have been no finish'd worke but onely a first draught or inchoation ventured abroad to explore the judgements op one of two intelligent Adversaries that so the Authour by his second he might have said third thoughts might be better able to understand what was to be altered in it what added or what taken a way either as superfluous or offensive and till that act was done and withall till an approbation and license given by those to whom it belonged neither the worke nor any line of it is to be acknowledged or vouched by the Authour And so both were returned with some few alterations and additions in his Answer and marginall Notes on the Reply and one sheet at the end of them containing a new Scheme of probation of the pretended Infallibility and a preloquium to it wherein the passage just now mentioned is interminis recited This the Replicant to avoid all appearance of severity was content to accept for sad earnest and therefore freely exprest his willignesse to give the Authour leave to provide a new Answer to his Lordships-Treatise which he might be willing to owne in publicke which when he should doe promise was made to prepare a speedy Answer thereunto and on those termes to be content to lay aside the former That this should be done was affirmed on one part and on the other expected some months with patience till at length the Answerers pleasure was made knowne that that resolution was put off and that in stead of so meane a combat either with his Lordship or this Replicant he was pleased now to designe a full discourse on that Subject without taking notice of either any farther than he should thinke fit to take in his way any thing by them objected against his position and that this should be printed beyond the Seas When this will be performed I cannot tell Onely this is now discerned somewhat contrary to expectation that what hath been disclaimed by him is extolled by others and the weaknesse of the Replicant sufficiently despised Wherein though he hath not much temptation to thinke himself injured being ready to acknowledge the
emptynesse of these Papers and more then so to render a reason of it viz the fate which they were under by a necessity of attending this Apologist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which yeilded them occasion of little variety unlesse they would extravagate Yet could he not resist the Reasons which charged it on him as a duty thus confidently to importune the Reader with the view of the whole matter as farre as it hath past between them setting downe that Answer to and this Vindication of his Lordships Arguments by Chapters and then not doe him the least injustice adding in the end of all the Answerers marginall Replyes and that concluding Sheet that even now was mentioned with a Rejoynder to that also By all this endeavouring to lay grounds for all men to judge how little truth there is in that so Epidemicall perswasion that there is no middle betwixt asserting an Infallible Judge and the falling headlong into all the Schismes and Haeresies of this present age My Conscience assuring me that the grounds on which the establish'd Church of England is founded are of so rare an excellent mixture that as none but intelligent truely Christian minds can sufficiently value the composition so there is no other in Europe so likely to preserve Peace and Unity if what prudent Lawes had so long agoe designed they now were able to uphold For want of which and which onely it is that at present the whole Fabricke lyes polluted in confusion and in blood and hopes not for any binding up of wounds for restauration of any thing that lookes like Christian till the faith of the reformed English have the happinesse to be weighed prudently and the military Sword being timely sheathed the Power and Lawes of Peace be returned into those hands which are ordained by GOD the Defenders of it H. H. Of the INFALLIBILITY of the CHURCH of ROME A Discourse written by the Lord Viscount FALKLAND Section 1 TO him that doubts whether the Church of Rome have any errors they answer that She hath none for She never can have any This being so much harder to believe than the first had need be proved by some certaine arguments if they expect that the belief of this one should draw on whatsoever else they please to propose Yet this is offered to be proved by no better wayes than those by which we offer to prove she hath erred Which are arguments from Scripture Reason and Antient Writers all which they say themselves are fallible for nothing is not so but the Church which if it be the onely infallible determination and that can never be believed upon its owne authority we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible for these other waies of proof they say may deceive both them and us and so neither side is bound to believe them Section 2 If they say that an argument out of Scripture is sufficient ground of Divine faith why are they so offended with the Protestants for believing every part of their Religion upon that ground upon which they build all theirs at once and if following the same Rule with equall desire of finding the truth by it having neither of those qualities which Isidorus Pelusiota sayes are the causes of all Heresies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pride and prejudication why should God be more offended with the one than the other though they chance to erre Section 3 They say the Church is therefore made infallible by God that all men may have some certain Guide yet though it be infallible unlesse it both plainly appeare to be so for it is not certaine to whom it doth not appeare certaine and unlesse it be manifest which is the Church God hath not attained his end and it were to set a Ladder to Heaven and seem to have a great care of my going up whereas unlesse there be care taken that I may know this Ladder is here to that purpose it were as good for me it had never been set Section 4 If they say we may know it for that generall and constant Tradition instructs us in it I answer that ignorant people cannot know this and so it can be no Rule for them and if learned people mistake in this there can be no condemnation for them For suppose to know whether the Church of Rome may erre as a way which will conclude against her but not for her for if She hath erred certainly She may but though She hath not erred hitherto it followes not that She cannot erre I seeke whether She have erred and conceiving She hath contradicted her selfe conclude necessarily She hath erred I suppose it not damnable though I erre in my judgement because I trie the Church by one of those touch-stones her self appoints me which is Conformity with the Antient. For to say I am to believe the present Church that it differs not from the former though it seem to me to doe so is to send me to a Witnesse and bid me not believe it Section 5 Now to say the Church is provided for a Guide of faith but must be known by such marks as the ignorant cannot seek it by and the learned may chance not to find it by though seeking it with all diligence and without all prejudice can no way satisfie me Section 6 If they say God will reveal the truth to whosoever seeks it in these wayes sincerely this saying both sides will without meanes of being confuted make use of therefore it would be as good that neither did Section 7 When they have proved the Church to be infallible yet to my understanding they have proceeded nothing farther unlesse we can be sure which is it for it signifies onely that God will alwaies have a Church which shall not erre but not that such or such a Succession shall be alwaies in the right not that the Bishop of such a place and the Clergy that adheres to him shall alwaies continue in the true faith So that if they say the Greek Church is not the Church because by its owne confession it is not infallible I answer that it may be now the Church and may hereafter erre and so not be now infallible and yet the Church never erre because before their fall from truth others may arise to maintain it who then will be the Church and so the Church may still be infallible though not in respect of any set persons whom we may know at all times for our Guide Section 8 Then if they prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church and not the Greeke because their opinions are consonant either to Scripture or Antiquity they run into a circle proving their tenets to be true first because the Church holds them and then theirs to be the true Church because it holds the truth which last though it appeare to me the onely way yet it takes away it's being a Guide which we may follow without examination without which all they say besides is nothing Section
by some collateral consideration Section 26 Next to this certaine and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome which averseth me from it comes their putting all to death or at least paines that are so where they have power which is an effect though not a necessary one of the first opinion and that averseth me yet more for I doe not believe all to be damned whom they damne but I conceive all to be killed whom they kill I am sure if you look upon Constantine's Epistle written to perswade concord upon the first disagreement between Alexander Arrius you will find that he thought and if the Bishops of his time had at first thought otherwise he would have been sure better informed that neither side deserved either death or damnation and yet sure this question was as great as ever rose since For having spoken of the opinions as things so indifferent that the Reader might almost think they had been fallen out at Spurn-point or Ketle-pins he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that which is necessary is one thing that all agree and keep the same faith about divine providence I am sure in the same Author Moses a man praised by him refusing to be made Bishop by Lucius because he was an Arrian and he answering That he did ill to refuse it before he knew what his faith was Answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The banishing of Bishops shews ENOUGH your faith So that it is plaine he thought punishing for opinions to be a marke which might serve him to know false opinions by Section 27 I believe throughout Antiquity you will find no putting any to death unlesse it be such as begin to kill first as the Circumcollians or such like I am sure Christian Religions chief glory being that it increased by being persecuted and having that advantage of the Mahumetan which came in by force me thinks especially since Synesius hath told us and reason told men so before Synesius that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every thing is destroyed by the contrary to what setled and composed it It should be to take ill care of Christianity to seek to hold it up by Turkish meanes at least it must breed doubts that if the Religion had alwaies remained the same it would not be defended by waies so contrary to those by which it was propagated Section 28 I desire recrimination may not be used for though it be true that Calvin hath done it and the Church of England a little which is a little too much for Negare manifesta non audeo excusare immodica non possum yet She confessing She may erre is not so chargeable with any fault as those which pretend they cannot and so will be sure never to mend it and besides I will be bound to defend no more than I have undertaken which is to give reasons why the Church of Rome is fallible Section 29 I confesse this opinion of damning so many and this custome of burning so many this breeding up those who know nothing else in any point of Religion yet to be in readiness to crie To the fire with him and To Hell with him as Polybius saith in a certaine furious Faction of an Army of severall Nations and consequently languages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All of them understood onely this word Throw at him this I say in my opinion was it chiefly which made so many so suddenly leave the Church of Rome that indeed to borrow the Authours phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They needed not perswasion to doe it but onely newes that others had begun For as this alone if believed makes all the rest be so too so one thing alone mis-liked overthrowes also all the rest Section 30 If it were granted that because it agrees not with the Goodnesse of God to let men want an infallible Guide therefore there must be one and that the Church of Rome were that one yet if that teach any thing to my understanding contrary to Gods Goodnesse I am not to receive her doctrine for the same cause for which they would have me receive it it being as good an argument This Guide teaches things contrary to Gods goodnesse therefore is not appointed by God as to say It is agreeable to his goodnesse there should be a Guide therefore there is one And sure it is lawfull to examine particular doctrines whether they agree with that principle which is their foundation and to that me thinks to damne him that neither with negligence nor prejudication searcheth what is Gods will though he misse of it is as contrary as the first can be supposed Section 31 I would know whether he that never heard of the Church of Rome shall yet be damned for not believing her infallible I have so good an opinion of them as to assure my self they will answer he shall not I will then aske whether he that hath searched what Religions they are and finds hers to be one and her infallibility to be part of it if his reason will not assent to that shall he be damned for being inquisitive after truth for he hath committed no other fault greater then the other and Whether such an ignorance I mean after impartiall search be not of all other the most invincible Section 32 Nay grant the Church to be infallible yet me thinks he that denies it and imployes his reason to seeke if it be true should be in as good case as he that believes it and searcheth not at all the truth of the proposition he receives for I cannot see why he should be saved because by reason of his parents beliefe or the Religion of the Country or some such accident the truth was offered to his understanding when had the contrary been offered he would have received that and the other damned that beleeves falshood upon as good ground as the other doth truth unlesse the Church be like a Conjurers circle that will keep a man from the Devill though he came into it by chance Section 33 They grant that no man is an Heretique that believes not his Heresie obstinately and if he be no Heretique he may sure be saved It is not then certain damnation for any man to deny the infallibility of the Roman Church but for him onely that denies it obstinately and then I am safe for I am sure I doe not Section 34 Neither can they say I shall be damned for Schisme though not for Heresie for he is as well no Schismatique though in Schisme that is willing to joyne in communion with the true Church when it appeares to be so to him as he is no Heretique though he hold Hereticall opinions that holds them not obstinately that is as I suppose with a desire to be informed if he be in the wrong Section 35 Why if it be not necessary alwayes to believe the truth so one believe in generall what the Church would have believed for so they excuse great men
of an infirme not a malicious mistaker And the first thing we have to view is that which is entituled A note upon the title of the Adversarie's C. 1. We against whom this enquirer writes or rather to whom he propounds his difficulties with a pretending desire of procuring a satisfaction are defenders of the Catholique Churches Infabillity which Churches chief Pastour or Metropolitan though he be particular Bishop of Rome as of some one place or other he must be yet neverthelesse from that one portion of it is not the whole and universall Church aptly to be stiled the Church of Rome as in the Enquirers title it is called no more then the Church of England can be rightly termed the Church of Canterbury or the Protestants of England the Canterburians as the Scotch Puritans have called them onely because the chief Bishop and Primate of the whole Kingdome hath his seat at Canterbury By the self same reason then cannot we justly be called Romanists as it hath pleased some Protestants to entitle us The reason of this assertion is That Rome and Canterbury are but small and onely materiall portions of either Church and therefore no way sufficient to give a denomination to the whole As then the Church of England is wrongfully called the Church of Canterbury so in like manner is the Church Catholique wrongfully stiled the Church of Rome or as such controverted to be fallible or infallible forasmuch as this perfection of being infallible is not claimed by her as she is Church of Rome but as she is the Catholique and according to the appointment of Christ governed by S. Peter and his successours For this cause we have altered the title and stated the question in tearmes more proper and formall enquiring not Whether the Roman Church but whether the Catholique be infallible and this ought to be the title But before we enter upon the examination of particular difficulties the Reader may please to know that this same Enquiry was written by the Author diverse yeares agoe in his Catholique Mothers life time and was by her mediation forthwith answered at large and the answer sent unto the Enquirer fairly bound up in whose hands though it rested long yet had it never any reply made unto it though it was sometime threatned it should At that very time Chillingworths Booke began to be in moulding and it may be that same new labour diverted the Enquirer and altered his designe Now at length in a time most unseasonable by the frivolous officiousnesse of I know not whom these old papers are forced to see the light and to leave their answer behind them After so meane and creeping a fashion doe they appeare now unto the world But although no notice hath been taken of any answer made already or of giving licence for any other to be made hereafter or if made to be published in print and have the advantage to be dispersed abroad in many copies yet are we not by this discouraged from composing one for though for want of the Printers helpe it shall lye concealed and in much restraint yea and be in danger to perish as the other did before it yet may this small labour fall at least into some few hands and remove out of their way such dangerous stumbling blockes as have beene cast into it by this Enquirer who by his casting of doubts about the method of resolving faith hath thereby amongst all those who are not much versed therein endangered the stability and safety of the whole fabrique not of Catholique Religion onely but of Christian in Generall As for the Papers themselves and their particular contents they in a word are Chillingworths Booke in little and an Embryo of his large volume growne up after made bigge and bolstered out with many new materials borrowed from Baron the Scotch Minister and that impious author Volkelius the veines of whose poisonous doctrines and discourses are observed to runne branching throughout all Chillingworths worke Wherefore this small collection containing the substance of the other larger booke the confutation of this Enquirers allegations cannot but in substance conteine a confutation of all Chillingworths delated errors and sophistications wherewith so many soules have beene perverted or brought into great troubles and perplexities C. 1. Answer to C. 1. To the exceptions made against the title of the Lord Viscount Falklands discourse I answer by saying these few things Section 1 First that it is no news to heare of the Catholique Roman Church it hath frequently beene used and avowed by your owne writers and as I conceive is by your selfe acknowledged when you say the perfection of being infallible it not claimed by her i. e. the Church Catholique as she is the Church of Rome but as she is the Catholique which words by the rules of discourse must suppose you to thinke the Catholique Church to be capable of a double appellation Roman and Catholique though the perfection there spoken of belong to it onely under the second notion And beside you say in another place that the Roman Church is the Catholique whence it will follow that the Catholique is the Roman And if this be not propriety of speech his Lordship is not to be blamed for it but you whose dialect he is faine to use Section 2 This then being presumed to be granted by your writers and as I conceive also by you that the Roman Church is the Catholique Church or that the Roman and Catholique are two names for the same Church it will certainly follow that he that affirmes the Catholique Church to be infallible must affirme the Roman Church to be so too though not quatenus Roman For any particular man being affirmed to be a Christian whatsoever will be true to be said of this Christian will be true to be said of this man by the rule of quicquid praedicatur de praedicato praedicatur de subjecto if this Christian have a promise made a priviledge instated on him this man hath so also and if any that yeilded the former shall deny the latter it will never be sufficient ground or authority for such denying to affirme that it was made to him as a Christian and not as a man for the whole man being a Christian and not onely some part of him even that which belongs to him onely for Christianities sake doth as truly belong to him as that which his humanity gives him title to Section 3 Or 2â—y. If you have sprang a subtlety and by helpe of that meane to disclaime the expression of other your friends and therefore will not allow the Roman Church to be in propriety of speech the Catholique Church and yet will agree with them in all but in the expression truly you have revealed no great mystery to the world And as long as you define as you do the Catholique Church as it is the subject of the pretended Infallibility to be that which is governed by Saint Peter and his Successours we
matter of debate and till that be agreed there will be no other question seasonable to be proposed in this matter and wen it is there will be no other needfull Section 9 And for the parallel of the Canterburians which you use to prove the unfitnesse of the question under these termes it is but a thin fallacy easily seene through if it be thought to conclude any thing To the clearing of which be pleased to observe that the Bishop of Canterbury may be considered in a three-fold relation First to his particular Diocesse of Canterbury of which he is Bishop Secondly to the whole Province of Canterbury of which he is Metropolitan Thirdly to the whole Nationall Church of England of which he is Primate his two former relations are terminated in Canterbury under the two significations of the word but the third is terminated not in Canterbury in any notion of that word but in all England and thence it followes that the Church of Canterbury whether as a Province or a Diocesse which are the onely two Notions we in England have of it being not of the same latitude with the Church of England it will be improper to call the Protestants of England Canterburians But then on supposition that there were a third notion of it whereby the Church of Canterbury and the Church of England were of the same latitude or to him that were confidently perswaded that they are so it were no impropriety at all to call all English Protestants by that denomination and if to prove it were improper it should be affirmed that 't is but an accident that he that is Primate of all England should be Bishop of the particular See of Canterbury there would be no force in that proof First because that which is true per accidens is neverthelesse true and denominations being ad placitum are many times accidentall yet for all that denominations as much as if they had been by nature or per se and Secondly because we are now upon a supposition though it be but a supposition that there is a Nationall Church of Canterbury as well as a Province and Diocesse And therefore I say on this supposition if it had so happened or been agreed on that all that are under the Primate of Canterbury should be called the Church of Canterbury as it hath been agreed on that all that are under the Metropolitan of Canterbury should be called the Province of Canterbury we should never challenge any man of improper speaking that should call us Canterburians As for the Scotch Puritan you speak of that calls us so by way of reproach you cannot be ignorant of his meaning or think it pertinent to the purpose to which you apply it It was used by him onely in relation to the present doctrines of the then Bishop of Canterbury and onely some men scoffed at under that title as followers of his as they erroneously conceived particular or personall doctrines which is quite another notion of the word then that which you have occasion to speak of Section 10 From all this it will consequently appear to be as unreasonable for you who acknowledge a notion of the Roman Church equipollent with Catholicke and affirme the whole Catholicke Church to be govern'd by the Primate or Pope of Rome and urge the necessity of Christ's precept that the Church which you pronounce infallible must be so governed or else that it is no longer Catholicke to make any difference between the stile of Catholicke and of Roman Church or of Catholicks and Romanists no man among us fetching the denomination of Roman or Romanist when he thus speaks from the relative Diocesse of Rome as the Pope is a Bishop or from the relative Province of Rome as he is a Metropolitan but from the relative Church of Rome the whole number of those Christians who acknowledge the Pope their Primate or Partriarch which you that affirme him to be Primate of all Christians by full right and succession from Saint Peter must acknowledge him to be of the whole Catholike Church In which acknowledgement because we agree not with you but contend that his Patriarchate is limited as well as his Diocesse or Province as we cannot therefore speak throughout in your language and call that the Catholicke Church which is but a part of the Catholicke or debate the Infallibility of the Catholicke Church with them that meane by that phrase onely that are under the Roman Communion or government of the Pope of Rome whil'st we mean Catholicke without any restriction or if we should so speak shall be guilty of leaving a maine equivocation in the words of the question which ought of all things to be avoided by distinguishing before we goe about to debate any thing and after distinction made and agreed on that by Catholick is to be meant onely those which are in Obedience to the Pope we will then debate it under that title also so may we very reasonably use your dialect when we agree in the meaning of it as in the phrase Roman Church we doe meaning both of us all those who are govern'd by the Pope of which Church in that notion we now enquire whether that be infallible or no And so much for the phrase of the Question or Title of that Treatise Section 11 And then I shall adde no more to the second part of the first Chapter then by acknowledging the treatise of that excellent Lord to have beene written many yeares since and now not unseasonably publish't at a time when some arts were used though blessed be God improsperously to pervert unstable minds and this pretended Infallibility a maine auxiliary call'd in for that purpose As for any answer long since framed to it I am perswaded that that Lord thought it not such as that his reputation should be concerned in providing an answer for it And for the Publisher 't is very possible that he might never heare of any such which I guesse also by my selfe who had long since a copy of the one but till I read it here never heard of the other or if he did had reasons which he can justifie to any ingenuous man why he did not publish it also Which being now said to you and which you had before no ground of thinking to be otherwise you will hardly give a civill account why you should charge and now not aske pardon for charging on the Publisher a frivolous officiousnesse by which that answer is forced to stay behind though it were also sufficient to tell you that when you set out all your Bookes at Rome or Doway with our answers annext to them we will then publish this of yours at Oxford or on the Edition the stile of a mâ—ane anâ— creeping fashion of appearing to the world which words being so contrary to truth which is punctually this the Booke was licensed by the Vice-chancellour Printed by the Printer to the Vniversity the Authour's name put in the Title page
offence being as all men see plainly exceeded in justice and civility by the Turkes Wherefore no marvaile that our Inquirer is forced to confesse that Calvin is too blame in this point and the Church of England a little which is a little too much for addeth he Negare manifesta non audeo excusare immodica non possum Sure this Inquirer came with very little indifferency to give his judgement here when he saith the Church of England is guilty but a little I would know of him what is a great deale if all that we have suffer'd from it be but a little But it is well he would acknowledge thus much for it is more then others have done and more ingenuity appeares in him then in them and perhaps he would have said more if it might have beene well taken though in confessing this little he insinuates all Doubtlesse no manner of proceeding can be more unworthy then for a latter generation to forget from whose Ioynes they came and to become harsh and contumelious to their owne fore-fathers children and persecute them with all rigour as if they were enemies and invaders and aliens onely for their honourable continuing in that faith which their Ancestours did leave them and commended to them as chiefe inheritance in that faith which hitherto they which assaile it have never beene able by any argument to prove it false nor yet on the other side to evict by any unanswerable demonstration that their owne new faith was true Wherefore since if any have more right one then another for the exercise of their Religion in this Kingdome it is we and this right cannot be taken from us by any power under heaven and againe were your reasons never so good yet you are not to school us or to be our Tutors or to compell us unto change Therefore the severity that hath been used over us hath no warrant for it no president or example nothing wherewith to countenance it in the sight of the World or to justifie it in the sight of God but is every way abominable and foul such in fine as neither the Christians used to the Pagans their predecessours nor Catholiques to the descendents of the formost and invading Protestants nor any civil man would offer to another If the Religion saith the Inquirer had alwayes remained the same it would not be defended by wayes so contrary to those by which it was propagated But now what wayes are these he means force and violence and saying To the fire with him and To heâ—l with him for these are the Inquirers owne expressions To these I adde the slanderous and diabolicall charges of Chillingworth who knew much of the Inquirers minde although in all things he did not follow his direction You professe saith Chillingworth c. 2. § 101. that it is lawfull for you to use violence and power whensoever you can have it for the planting of your Doctrine and extirpation of the contrary Thus he but because he cites no Author for this so heinous an accusation we may justly suspect that you your selves hold it lawfull for you to slander and calumniate for the defence of your own bad cause and the overthrowing of the contrary whensoever other means of doing it does faile you as indeed it falls out continually The same heavy charge he in foul tearmes reiterates c. 5. § 96. You saith he teach plainly you may propagate Religion whensoever you have power by deposing of Kings and invasion of Kingdomes and think when you kill the adversaries of it you doe God good service For clearing of us against this malitious charge I call into the Court Saint Thomas of Aquine and all his with him in 2.2 q. 10. art 8. as witnesses sufficient to justifie our cause and shew our innocency even against the Devill himselfe that great calumniator of our Brethren and to them I adde Acosta in his booke De procuranda Indorum salute and Mariana in his history of Spaine in sundry places and might adde many more sufficient to confute the Adversary and make him hatefull to every honest heart Besides though in some cases we as other professions also doe make use of penall Lawes wherewith to keep off invaders and yet not for any interior preservation or defence In like sort we seek by the help of the sword and force of Armes to keep the Turkes out of Christendome shall we all be blamed for doing so or shall it be said therefore that we defend the Christian Religion by Armes and violence and by other meanes then it was propagated at the first nothing lesse we use reasons to perswade and plant our faith we use the like to defend it against Infidels Sociâ—ians and all other Sects how then is our Religion planted propagated or defended by violence It is one thing to be fenced exteriorly and a farre off with Statutes of temporall severity against invaders which course is a thing expedient and avowed both by us and all and it is another thing to defend it interiorly by the same meanes that is to say to justifie the right truth of Religion by them and this we disavow neither doe we practice it any where as it is most manifest The Inquirer was very provident when he desired that in these accusations of violence no recrimination should be used for he must needs see there was more matter returnable then either could be gratefull or they could justifie yet since he will needs talk of killing and cast the blame upon our side he must be content if we make some reflection upon the misdemeanors of the Adversary as well as upon our own innocency I desire therefore the intelligent reader to consider whether in this last age the Catholiques have put to death more Ministers or half so many as the Protestants of England have done Priests who it is well known they have slaine and butchered with great barbarisme and immanity But setting aside these heavy crimes of bloud deliberately shed who is it have afflicted others more in their Estates and Fortunes they or we and for proof of this we will offer fair let them restore all they have taken with a strong hand from us in livelyhoods both spirituall and temporall in all the Provinces of Europe and we will restore all we have taken from them and in that goe no farther then this Seventeenth age which is now passing be it in this Kingdome or in those about it It is well knowne that in all those Provinces where both Religions are professed and live intermingled none be on the suffering hand but we none persecutes but they and it is we who are the Aborigines as I may so tearm us and thereby have at much right for all indemnity as our Ancestours could divolve upon us We are not insensible of the wrong we suffer daily by having it printed and pronounced in publique Assemblies on purpose to countenance injuries and to excite against us the ignorant multitude that our
unhappy for any ingenuous man to make any confession to you who from his Lordship's acknowledgment that the Church of England is a little too blame in this point conclude that in confessing this he insinuates all This 't is to deale with men who cannot imagine it possible that a man's words and thoughts should be of the same latitude Should I by the same Logicke conclude that you by confessing that all invaders for Religion must be put to death doe intimate that all kinde of Protestants must be executed I hope you would say you had wrong done you And yet to tell you truth the subtlety of your next distinction would give any man that observed it great temptation so to conclude of you For after your citation of S. Th. of Aquine and the Schoolemen you are pleased to communicate to us a notable Mystery that you doe use reasons to perswade and plant your faith and truly the telling us you cannot erre and upon that bottome building all your most irrationall conclusions is no speciall exercise of the reasonable faculty and onely fence it exteriourly and afarre off with statutes of temporall severity against invaders which say you is another thing from defending it interiourly by that meanes i. e. from justifying the right and truth of religion by them Section 24 I should never have beene so uncivill as to have affixt such a sence to your distinction had you not beene your owne interpreter It is as if you had said you are not to be accused for planting religion by armes because your swords doe onely force men to be of your minds doe not give them any reasons why they should And truly I have not heard any man say that your armes did fence religion interiourly being the unaptest thing in the world to justifie the right and truth of religion and therefore you need not disavow that so providently the great Turke could send a letter to your Pope and answer and confute his bull of inciting the Princes of Christendome to take up armes against him for crucifying their god and tell him that as 't was a great falsity to charge on him what was proper to the Jewes the crucifying of Christ the Turke being descended from the Trojans and therefore desiring the Popes aide against the Grecians to avenge their murther of the Trojan Hector a kinde of god of theirs so if the Pope were truly a worshipper of Christ he would never invade any nation upon quarrell of religion so farre is this kinde of fighting in the knowledge of all even of Turkes themselves from justifying of the truth that if is a very great argument of the falsenesse of any sect of Christian religion a plaine demonstration that they doe not obey the Christ whom they worship Section 25 The using the sword as an exteriour meanes of propagating your religion is all that is laid to your charge and that it seemes you are content to yeild us Though within a page or two more you have forgotten your selfe againe and say that for publique coaction or violence you doe not owne it I wish you did not Section 26 And that you may for the time to come deale clearely and never have minde to sucke in your words and owne it againe I shall in passing mention to you a narration concerning an honest Philosopher in Valens his time It was Themistius who before his death turn'd from Aristotelian to Christian but I conceive was not yet converted when this story is related of him Valens in Antioch saith the Historian had vehemently persecuted the Christians that were not of his opinion had not a booke of Themistius the Philosopher recall'd him in which he perswaded him that he ought not to be cruell to any for a difference of Ecclesiasticall opinions seeing among the Pagans themselves there were more than 300 sects differing all from one another And perhaps this might be wore acceptable at least more pardonable before God because God is not easily knowne and is glorified in different manners on purpose that every man may feare the more the more he wants of the integrity and perfection of that knowledge of him either how he is or how qualified or how great he is By the reasons of Themistius saith he mitior factus est Imperator the Emperour became more mild It may not be unfit for your friends to consider the example and doe so too Section 27 As for your challenge to us that if we will restore all we have taken from Papists in Europe you will restore what you have taken from us it is a good safe boast you know that it is not in any replyers power to strike the bargaine Yet if all the pecuniary mulcts under the reigne of the three last Princes in this Kingdome be price enough to ransome and fetch backe the bloud shed by you in Queene Maries daies I doubt not but I shall be as forward as you to accept that challenge Section 28 Meane while for the justification of our severest lawes in this point you cannot but confesse that in most Kingdomes strong presumptions have beene thought sufficient to make lyable to punishment In the Canon law the proving of nudus cum nudâ that such a man and woman were taken naked together is presumption enough to bring the punishment of adultery on any And when our Queene had run so many dangers by Priests and thereupon Capitall lawes were made that no such should come into the Kingdome or if they did they should be presumed traiterously disposed and punished accordingly and this Statute thus legally made conveyed to the knowledge of all such it hath been a very rationall presumption against any that should be so found Though as 't is possible that nudus cum nudâ may be no adulterer so such a Priest may have no traiterous purpose And yet if you marke it unlesse since these times of troubles very few of you have suffered among us by this Statute Section 29 Sir you had great leasure when you could enlarge so to triumph over us for acknowledging our Church fallible and professe to discharge his Lordship from being your Advocate if he speake so ill for his Client This you might have done long since and unlesse your favour may be had upon some other tearmes then undertaking the Infallibility of meere creatures we must all be content to be discarded by you Section 30 Yet after all your turning away and slighting we shall never be so provoked as to punish you for the result of what we prescribe you If your best use of reason in the interpretation of Scripture and not any prejudice or passion or fault of yours have sincerely brought you to your opinions and no light that is offer'd hath beene neglected and yet all prove unsufficient to convince you I shall never severely pronounce against you and if you will say and make good as much to me our affections may meet though not our braines
be no Argument Section 4 This being premised I pray observe in the second place the no force of this Argument against us unlesse it may also appeare that our departing from you is the cause of these Dissentions For if they be but onely consequent to it accidentally this ought not in all reason to be laid to our charge any farther then thus that this accidentall consequent is a probable argument of one of these two things either that you have better rules for the restraining of such Dissentions than we or else that you are more carefull in executing the rules you have and if either of these be said by you I shall then tell you 1. That it seemes this Argument concludes but probably though the proposition were granted and I believe I could urge as probably on the other side and conclude the excellency of our Reformation from that old saying of Clemens by way of Answer to your Objection both of Jewes and Heathens against Christianity taken from the Dissentions of Christians in the Primitive Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The cause of them is because all things that are excellent are subject to the envy of Men and Devils and from thence to the sowing of seeds of Dissentions amongst them agreeably to that of our Saviour that as soon as the wheat was in the ground the envious sowed his tares Section 5 But then secondly for the preventing of such Dissentions I shall adde that though we have not pretence of infallibility and threats of fire to restraine Men from them yet we have other rules more agreeable to antient Church practice than either of these and though the weapon of our warfare are not carnall in your sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the taking away of life yet are they if they were executed mighty to bring downe or shut out Heresies For if you know it not I can tell you that Excommunication that soveraigne receipt of Christ and his Apostles the most perfect designe of charity to save and recover that which is lost to shame Men to reformation and upon contempt of that that secular rougher hand interposing the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo and the Statute of Abjuration are very strong restraints and if they have not been so diligently executed as they ought to be though I hope you will pardon this fault yet he that will not must charge it onely on the Persons of our Magistrates and not on our Religion or the state of our Reformation And then let me adde that even these lawes and this execution of them or the like whether among you or us can extend no farther then to outward restraints and that onely of those that will be so terrified or to punishment of them that will not but not to preventing of Heresies in the inward rise or growth or sometimes in the breaking out whensoever ambition of being Leader of a Sect c. are more prevailing than feare of punishments which cases must be lookt for in every Church Section 6 To which purpose you may please to reflect upon your selves and tell me whether there were not good store of Hereticks before the times of the Reformation If not I am sure Irenaeus Epiphanius and Saint Augustine and Philastrius have abused us in their Catalogues and I beseech you but to remember the ridiculous Heresies of Galatia which Saint Jerome mentions on occasion of Gal. 3.1 in respect of which he conceives the Apostle calls them such fooles and thinks they were bewitcht particularly those of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that would have Cheese mixt with the Bread in the Sacrament which with two others of the like stamp there mentioned came from Ancyra the Metropolis of Galatia And yet I believe you would not thinke the Argument of much force if it should from your example against us be made use of by us either against those Apostolicall Churches or against the Roman Church ever since that so many Heresies are gone out of it and yet that would be as reasonable in us as in you it is to charge all the Heresies which have been in the World since Luther upon the Reformation Section 7 For let me aske you is the fault that you object to us in this matter that Hereticks are gone out from us That which wee have said will satisfie you that that is no argument that we are not a true Church for if it be it will be of force against the Catholique Orthodox Church in all Ages Or is it that they that thus dissent from us are suffered to continue among us if that be it then first there are also Dissenters among you continuing with you Secondly our Lawes and Canons are for the casting them out if their dissentings be Hereticall and that is all that you can pretend of these and if we have been more indulgent than you would have us that is but an errour of tendernesse first and then that onely the fault of Persons Section 8 Having said thus much which I conceive full ground of satisfaction to what you have or can say in this matter I might now adde that if you looke no farther then the Church of England even in these which I suppose you will count the worst times of it you cannot finde any greater or more dangerous Heresies avowed by any considerable Party than are owned by some of the Jesuits among you Section 9 I shall first mention that popular doctrine you know what I meane of Bellarmine resumed and confirmed not long before his death with his most advised care in his Recognitions Secondly the doctrine and practice of resisting and deposing lawfull Magistrates under colour of religion that I set it no higher even to killing of Kings Thirdly the opposing the Order of Bishops as expresly contrary to the sole-power enstated by Christ on S. Peter And also Fourthly the affirming it lawfull that evill may be done so it be in order to a publique good and that I trouble you with no more and yet give you reason to thinke that it is in my power I beseech you to believe that I have read Watson's Quodlibets and I could without much difficulty make a parallel betwixt these whom you so much charge and those whom you defend your hatedst Enemies and your dearest Friends that Booke being so richly able to furnish me with hints that I have surveyed the Writings betwixt the Seculars and the Regulars with the late controversie among you about the Bishop of Calcedons being appointed Ordinary in this Kingdome produced and in them the difference about the necessity of Confirmation and the non even now mentioned in the Canon of the Councell as also the Symbolum Jesuiticum c. and if we have any greater divisions among us yet than these I beseech you to let me know it from you for I believe 't will be no easie discovery and I shall promise to doe and pray my utmost that they may be
reason will tell him this Answ This is the very thing which is disproved in that place and then the bare repeating it over againe will be but a meane kinde of vindication Be pleased to looke over the place againe and if you will still thinke that there was any place for this annotation I shall be sorry I have beene thus troublesome to you Ibid. B. I have shewed the reason why Answ When an argument is framed on a double supposition without disputing the truth of either 't is not to be allowed the respondent to answer by denying the truth of either of the things supposed for they are supposed in that dispute but not disputed of As for example if the question were Whether supposing Adam were not falne and Christ were come the coming of Christ could be for the sinne of Adam doe you thinke 't would be tolerable for the respondent to avoid some argument brought against him by saying that it was absolutely false to say that Adam was not falne whereas 't was true that Christ was come This would certainly be so grosse and impossible to be justified that I should suspect any mans fidelity that should tell me he had rendred a satisfying reason why this should be And this is your case at this time Ibid. C. Whether she be infallible or no she is like to be wiser than any private man And this point cannot be in controversie with a wise man and therefore here is no petitio principii Answ This is a rare way of replying when a discourse hath been proved guilty of a petitio principii to say 't is impossible it should and when a thing is denied to say it cannot be in controversie But Sir I shall yeild you the Church may be wiser than any private man yet not conceive it to follow unlesse she be also infallible that when a private man and the Church differ she must alwaies be in the right He that is much wiser than another may yet in some particular be mistaken when that other is in the right yea and may be advised and reformed in such a particular by one that is not so wise as he This you may apply to the matter in hand not so farre as to preferre the authority of any one man before the Church in generall but onely so as not to pronounce it infallible I might tell you farther that a member of the Church of England assenting fully to the doctrine of that Church and so discharging the duty of a private man in preferring the judgement of the Church whereof he is a member before his owne judgement may yet doubt of some things affirmed by the Church of Rome and not make the comparison between a private mans judgement and the judgement of the Church but onely betwixt one particular Church and another But after all this I might have spared any or all these Answers and doe now onely desire you to looke back upon the place and you will soone see what no ground is to be found there of your Annotation Ibid. D. If you have no evidence that 't is Gods pleasure that your Church should be infallible nor can have you say true but this latter is denied Answ 'T is easie to deny conclusions still But if you will either answer the arguments which have proved there is none or produce any such evidence that it is infallible you shall be victorious indeed Ib. E. This argument which the Inquirer impugnes is an argument of his owne making and none of ours yet for all that the argument is not like a Ballad as good backward as forward as M. Chillingworth putting it a little differently from the Inquirer would have it Answ If you had pleased to disclaime and not defend this argument at the first you might have saved us some paines and if you will yet promise me that no man shall out of M. Knots Book make use of this argument any more I will be very well content that argument shall be no longer insisted on yet must tell you my opinion from my owne expresse knowledge that they which read that Book before 't was confuted by M. Chillingworth did verily believe that that argument to prove an infallible judge taken from the topick of Gods goodnesse was M. Knots master-piece and the founation on which the maine weight of his structure was supported C. 19. Answ to C. 19. A. In a Respondent there can be no such thing as Petitio principii Answ We have shewed you that a Respondent may so ill behave himself that there may As for example when a man hath used Arguments to prove that you have been guilty of begging the Question For you to despise and not take notice of the arguments and to say onely that there can be no such thing is the very thing called Petitio principii Ib. B. But we againe deny it is Petitio principii and the contrary ought to be proved Answ It is clearly proved in the place and not to consider the proofs but to deny the conclusion is another guilt of that sophism C. 20. Answ to C. 20. A. If the Enquirers meaning be as you put it it makes nothing at all against us nor needs any Answer But Chillingworth goes farther and saies that many of the simpler sort amongst us believe Truth upon no better grounds than others believe Falshood and yet our simpler sort believe Truths upon all the motives that yours doe and somewhat more Answ That that is his Lordships meaning is plaine viz That he that denies your infallibility and yet uses his best reason to seeke if it be true will be in as safe a condition as he that believes it and searches not And if this be nothing against you I shall hope this quarrell is nearer an end then ever I had thought to see it And then sure many of us shall be capable of that charity which you bestow upon your owne for I am confident what we doe we doe upon search and use of our best reason and yet that we deny your infallibility you are sufficiently assured C. 21. Answ to C. 21. A. He might be secretly obstinate and yet both he and we conceive the contrary Answ 'T is true he might But yet sure you that believe he was not obstinate cannot believe that the punishment of obstinacy should belong to him but must either thinke God unjust or else believe him safe in the same degree that you think him not obstinate And this is all I required from you C. 22. Answ to C. 22. A. Every implicite assent must be resolved lastly into an explicite or else there will be an infinite regression for every implicite presupposes something in which it is involved or implicite Answ I beseech you observe the nature of this Annotation of yours You say in your Apology that one implicite Faith doth not containe another I proved that false by this instance that supposing I believed by an implicite Faith that you