the Character will be farr too short It is in you and onely you my Lord to set him out truely and to resemble him to the life and that will be by taking that Evangelicall Counsell Tu autem fac similiter Do like him live like him and pardon me if I add one thing more like him Love My Lord Your Lordships most humble and affectionately devoted Servant TRIPLET OF THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME A discourse written by the Lord Viscount FALKLAND TO him that doubteth whether the Church of Rome hath any errors they answer that she hath none for she never can have any this being so much harder to beleeve then the first had need be proved by some certainer Arguments if they expect that the beleefe of this one should draw on whatsoever they please to propose yet this if offered to be proved by no better wayes then we offer to prove by that she hath erred which are arguments from Scripture and ancient Writers all which they say 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 proofe may deceive both them and us and so neither side is bound to beleeve them If they say that an argument out of Scripture is sufficient ground of Divine Faith why are they offended with the Protestants for beleeving 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 Isid. Pelus saith are the cause of all Heresie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pride and Prejudication why should God be more offended with the one then with the other though they chance to erre 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 never had been set If they say we may know for that generall 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 I seek whether she have erred and conceiving she hath contradicted her self conclude necessarily she hath erred I suppose it not damnable though false because I try the Church by one of the touch-stones which herself appoints me Conformity with the Ancients For to say I am to beleeve the present Church that it differs not from the former though it seem to me to do so is to send me to a witnesse and bid me not beleeve it now to say the Church is provided for a guide of Faith but must be known by such markes as the ignorant cannot seek it by and the learned may chance not find it by can no way satisfie me If they say God will reveale the Truth to whomsoever seeks it these waies sincerely this saying both sides will without meanes of being confuted make use of therefore it would be as good that neither did 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 have a Church alwaies which shall not erre but not that such or such a succession shall be in the right so that if they say the Greek Church is not the Church because by its own 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 maintaine 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 Then if they prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church and not the Greek Church because their opinions are consonant either to Scripture or Antiquitie they run into a Circle proving their Tenets to be true First because the Church holds them And then theirs to be the Church because the Church holds the Truth Which last though it appears to me the onely way yet it takes away its being a Guide which we may follow without examination without which all they say besides is nothing Nay suppose that they had evinced that some succession were Infallible and so had proved to a learned man that the Roman Chruch must be this because none else pretends to it yet this can be no sufficient ground to the ignorant who cannot have any infallible foundation for their beleefe that the Church of Greece pretends not to the same and even to the Learned it is but an accidentall Argument because if any other Company had likewise claimed to be Infallible it had overthrown all The chiefest reason why they disallow of Scripture for Judge is because when differences arise about the interpretation there is no way to end them And that it will not stand with the goodnesse of God to damne men for not following his Will if he had assigned no infallible way to find it I confesse this to be wonderfull true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let them excuse themselves that think otherwise yet this will be no Argument against him that beleeves that to them who follow their reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures God will either give his Grace for assistance to find the Truth or his pardon if they misse it And then this supposed necessitie of an infallible Guide with the supposed damnation for want of it fall together to the ground If they command us to beleeve infallibly the contrary to this they are to prove it false by some infallible way for the conclusion must be of the same nature and not conclude more then the premisses set down Now such a way Scripture and Reason and infused Faith cannot be for they use to object the fallibility of these to those that build their Religion upon them nor the authority of the Church for this is part of the Question and must it self be first proved and that by none of the former waies for the former reasons The Popes Infallibility can be no infallible ground of Faith being it self no
amongst those who parted from us for although to day they agree there is no bond or tie why to morrow they may not disagree These two things we brag of and I think the Author will not denie it For he confesseth that we all agree in that the Church is an infallible Mistresse Then it is evident that if in any controversie she interposeth her judegment the controversie is ended He likewise confesseth that who part from us have no such definitive authority amongst them and that Scripture whereon they rely hath no such vertue to take up Controversies clearely Supposing that we agreed much lesse then you yet a little all in earnest that is unforced is more considerable then much constrained and so peradventure much of that much but in appearance Besides that you all agree in those points wherein if any disagree he becomes none of you is no more then is so common to all Religions that even the very Anabaptists may say as much for themselves For either all the Parts of them remaine of assent insomuch that they are all still of the same Religion and so agree as well as your Dominicans and Jesuites or else their differences are such as to make them of severall Religions and then why is want of Unity objected to them any more then it is to Christians in generall among whom are so many divisions and yet not the whole but the faulty party taxed And truely in my opinion some Questions among your selves are as great not onely as any among your adversaries but as any between you and them I but you answer we have a way of being agreed we reply is it a way sure to lead to Truth as well as to Unity or else so might we have by going to most at three throwes and resolving to stand to that Besides if you have and make no more use of it it seemes there is no such need that Questions be ended as for that purpose to introduce a necessitie of an Ender But say you neither are all suits in the Common-wealth ended We reply that yet truely those Judges who should make no more haste to end them then your Judge doth these would deserve to loose his place but this they do as fast as the nature of the thing will permit which being or depending upon matter of Fact cannot be known erough to be judged before examination of witnesses and the like be ended and if they willingly deferre the ending they are confess'd to be in fault by all men but those who hold Perjury to be none But you seem to conceive our grounds faulty as not leading even to a possible Unity whereas to a possible one I am sure they do since what is concluded out of them by many may be by all nay indeed am confident that all who receive the Scripture for the onely rule and believe what is there plain to be onely necessarie would if they truely beleeved what they professe and were not lead aside either by prejudice or private ends or some Popish relicks of holding what they have long been taught or following the authority of some by them much esteemed persons either alive or dead soon agree in as much as is necessarie and in concluding no necessity of agreeing in more there being no doubt but it would soone appear plainly what is plaine Besides if no grounds be sufficient for Unitie which produce not the effect then it seemes the grounds of your grounds those Arguments by which you prove that there is a Judge and a generall Councell is it are insufficient since they are not able to make all Christians about this question Again although a Judge and this Judge be received yet this is still an insufficient ground for Unitie since the Greek Church agree thus farre with you which is as farre as you agree with one another and yet are not so bound by it to any universall Unitie with them but that they esteem you Hereticks and are esteemed so by you and if you say that it is not because the grounds upon which the Infallibilitie of the Church are built lead not sufficientlie to Unitie that we joyne not with you in beleeving them to be infallible not because the determination of generall Councels is not a sufficient meanes of Unitie that the Greek Church admitting their authoritie admits not of your opinions but it is the fault of us and of them hardening our hearts against the truth then we may as well say that some of those who agree in our grounds yet disagree from our doctrine not that the grounds lead not to Unitie but that our Adversaries will not be lead or if as you doe and some others of you sometimes you confesse that they through an innocent error dissent from you and doe this without any imputation in this respect to your grounds I hope it will be lawfull for us to allow the same possibilitie without any disadvantage or prejudice to ours Besides say you though we agree to day yet we may not to morrow which to prove were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paines whollie lost we confesse For though Tully make it an expression of his contempt to Piso in an Epistle to Atticus Ita nihil est ut plane quid erit nesciat yet I take it to be a true saying of man in generall who knowes little of present things and nothing of future but this is common to us both for if we change not our opinions we shall agree as we doe and if you change yours you shall not which is possible for not onelie that opinion of the Infallibilitie of your judges decrees may it self be altered which holdeth together all the rest but some of you may holding that ground like the Greek either change their opinions concerning the authority of such or such a Councell as beleeving it unduelie called factiouslie carried or not generall as is pretended or not so consenting as is requisite or differ from the rest concerning the sence of the decrees for whereas you say you agree that the Church is an infallible Mistresse and when she interposeth her judgement the controversie is ended I answer that first some of you with whom I have spoken my selfe hold that the Churches authoritie in defining extends no further then to such points whereof Tradition is of one part as in many controverted there is I beleeve no such and that this rule she may transgresse and so erre Secondlie Neither the Dominicans nor their Adversaries are very readie to remain in suspence to await her decision but define all readie concerning her definitions Cum utraque pars tenax contendat suam non aliam posse definiri sententiam either part tenaciouslie urging that the contrarie opinion cannot be defined which if they did to fright the Pope from defining least the condemned partie being even before should after make a Schisme they obtained their end Thirdlie What are you the nearer to Unitie for your Infallible Mistresse the Church when
in any point of Religion yet to be in a readinesse to cry To the fire with him to Hell with him as Polybius saith in a certaine furious faction of an army of severall nations and consequently of severall languages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They all joyned onely in understanding this word throw at him These I say in my opinion were chiefly the causes which made so many so suddenly leave the Church of Rome that indeed to borrow the same Authors Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They needed no perswasion to do it but onely newes that others had done it For as this alone if beleeved makes all the rest to be so too so one thing alone disliked where infallibility is claimed overthrowes all the rest If it were granted that it agreeth not with the goodnesse of God to let men want an infallible Guide and therefore there must be one and that the Church of Rome were it 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 teacheth things contrary to Gods goodnesse therefore this is not appointed by God as to say it is agreeable to his goodnesse there should be one therefore there is one and sure it is lawfull to examine particular Doctrines whether they agree with that Principle which is their foundation and for that me thinks to damn him that neither with negligence nor prejudication searches what is Gods will though he misse of it is as contrary as the first can be supposed Next I would know whether he that hath never heard of the Church of Rome shall yet be damned for not beleeving her infallible I have so good an opinion of them as to assure my self they will answer he shall not I will then ask whether he that hath searched what Religions there are and finds hers to be one and her infallibility to be a part of it if his reason will not assent to that shall 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 Nay grant the Church to be infallible yet me thinks he that denies it and imploies his reason to seek if it be true should be in as good case as he that beleeveth 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 beleef 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 Divell though he came unto it by chance They grant no man is an Heretick that beleeves not his Heresie obstinately and if he be no Heretick he may sure be saved It is not then certain damnation for any man to deny the Infallibility of the Church of Rome but for him onely that denies it obstinately And then I am safe for I am sure I do not Neither can they say I shall be damned for Schisme though not for Heresie for he is as well no Shcismatick though in Schisme that is willing to joyne in Communion with the true Church when it appears to be so to him as he is no Heretick though he holds Hereticall opinions who holds them not obstinately that is as I suppose with a desire to be informed if he be in the wrong Next Why if it be not necessary alwaies to beleeve the Truth so one beleeve in generall what the Church would have beleeved for so they excuse great men that have held contrary opinions to theirs now before they were defined or knew them to be so why I say shall not the same implicite assent serve to whatsoever God would have assented unto though I mistake what that is when indeed to beleeve implicitely what God would have beleeved is to beleeve implicitely likewise what the Church teacheth if this Doctrine be within the number of those which God commands to be beleeved I have the lesse doubt of this opinion that I shall have no harme for not beleeving the Infallibility of the Church of Rome because of my being so farr 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 chuse that that should then the contrary For they may well beleeve me that I take no pleasure in tumbling hard and unpleasant Books and making my self giddy with disputing obscure Questions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I should beleeve there should alwaies be whom I might alwaies know a society of men whose opinions must be certainely true and who would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 labour to discusse and define all arising doubts so that I might be excusably at ease and have no part left for me but that of obedience which must needs be a lesse difficult and so a more agreeable way then to endure endlesse Volumes of Commenters the harsh Greek of Epiphanius and the harder Latin of Irenaeus and be pained by distinguishing between different sences and various Lections and he would deserve not the lowest place in Bedlem that would preferr these studies before so many so more pleasant that would rather imploy his understanding then submit it and if he could think God imposed upon him onely the resisting temptations would by way of addition require from himself the resolving of doubts yet I say not that all these Books are to be read by those that understand not the languages for them I conceive their seeking into the Scripture may suffice but he who hath by Gods grace skill to look into them cannot better use it then in the searching of his will where they say it is to be found that he may assent to them if there he find reason for it or if not they may have no excuse for not excusing him For whereas they say it is pride makes us doubt of their Infallibilitie I answer That their too much lazinesse and impatience of examining is the cause that many of them do not doubt Next what pride is it never to assent before I find reason since they when they follow their Church as infallible pretend reason for it and will not say they would if they thought they found none and if they say we do find reason but will not eonfesse it then pride hinders not our assent but our declaration of it which if it do in any one he is without question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 con demned by himself and it must be a very partiall Advocate that would strive to
which I have answered their duty indeed but not theirs onely though Principally is to instruct us in the way to Heaven which they doing in the Persons of Embassadors between God and us and having no absolute Letters of Credence to bid us to beleeve that God saies whatsoever they say he saies as much as can be wrested out of Scriptures for any present Church being said of the Scribes and Pharisees who yet proved themselves not infallible our best way is in my mind to examine their Commission and if they can shew that they treat according to that to submit to them as in the same case we must to any of the Layetie or rather to God of whose commands they are but Organs and if not to beware of their Leaven Yet it may be that some man may hold that such an opinion is to be beleeved onelie because such a Church proposeth it and yet not believe her Infallible since he may think her authoritie by reason of her Learning Multitude Sanctitie Unitie and Libertie to be more probable then any contradicting argument and that men are to assent to what is most probable and truelie if he could prove to me his Major I am alreadie so much of the opinion of his Minor that I should joyne with him in his Conclusion So that if I understand any thing where there is no Infallibility there is no Power where no Power no Unity where no Unity no Entity where no Entity no Church How you tie Power to Infallibilitie I guesse but cannot how you tie Unitie to Power For how many things are all men even at Unitie about though one have no Power over another in them onelie cemented together by their clear evidence And how many more do whole Bodies and Sects of men agree about without any such power though they differ in other points as so do you too Do not Protestants agree with you about manie and the chiefest credenda and about almost all the meerely facienda Though not perswaded to this agreement by the Power of any Judge which they do acknowledge Nay if men could be at Unitie about no thing which were not proposed by some Guide or defined by some Judge endued with such a power how came all you to agree that there is some such Guide and Judge required since sure you receive not that upon its own authoritie and if men may find the necessitie of a Guide and Judge without any Guide or Judge and remain in Unitie about that why may they not also about whatsoever is clearly taught by God which reason assures us to be all that is necessarie and if you say that all things necessarie are not clearlie taught because we do not though it proves not that we might not agree upon them then I replie that I may as well say that neither is it cleare that there is a Guide because we dissent from you in it although receiving the authoritie of the Scripture out of which Cardinall Perron confesseth that Saint Austine saith that both the necessitie of your guide the Church and she her self are to be known and reason which as they may be plain in this point for you and yet perswade us not so may they be in all necessarie points and yet we who make theirs our ground not perswade one another As little see I why there can be no Entitie nor Church where there is no Unitie For the first though there be small Unitie among Christians yet certainly Christians and their Religion have some Entitie indeed if what you say were true there were no Entitie in yours For the second I know not why two parties over-valuing their differences may not conceive each other to be none of the Church and so declare even by excommunications and yet remain both Parts of it for if a Husband misse-suspecting his Wife of Adulterie declare her to be no longer his Wife this cannot make her give over being so if the bond be indeed not broken as well as chrysostome and Epiphanius both excommunicated by each other and yet both Saints or as particular men may by your own confession be interiorly in the Church although seeming out of it even to the Church her self and so those be both of the Church between whom there is no Unity For not onely in your own Cariophilus his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also though the persons have power yet if the cause have not sufficiencie I take you to agree that an excommunication is but a brutum fulmen as Victors of the Asian Bishops The best therefore and strictest definition and which I think you will not refute which I can give for the Church is especially in that sence as out of it there can be no salvation those who are desirous to know Gods Will or Christs at the strictest for I am not certaine nor I beleeve is it defined among you whether an explicite knowledge of Christ be absolutely necessarie to Salvation though I know no guiltlesse ignorance of him can bring unavoidably upon any man eternall torments and ready when known to beleeve and follow it and sure many of these may eternally disagree even in points which are necessarie abstracting from particular cases and yet their differences not exclude them from the Church and consequentlie a Church may be without Unitie Quod erat demonstrandum Now for the Controversies mentioned besides that there is a meanes to terminate them they be such as bring no breach of the ancient life and action of Christians which all those opinions do which for the most part are reputed to make Hereticks You saw verie well that if no Unitie no Church were a true Proposition yours hath in it differencies enough to destroy its being a Church and therefore are faine to applie what salves you can but all in vaine For your meanes to terminate them doth not make them not to be before they are terminated and consequently by your Rule yours is no Church till then Besides their bringing to breach of the ancient life and action of Christians proves not but one of them may be a Heresie since you say not your selfe that all Heresies are such but onelie for the most part and indeed to prove that you must be able to set down what those opinions are which before a definition may make a Heretick which I beleeve you will not venture to doe in haste though we much desire it at your hands that we may know if none of them be such That some controversies amongst us are not resolved is a thing necessarie amongst humane affaires where things must have a time to be born to encrease to fall and the greater things are the greater is their Period It is true that some time to be taken notice of must passe between an opinions rising and being condemned but that so long they should run on and many of your Councels having since been held is sure not necessarie and shewes
been any we know no force was equal to the courage of the Christians of those times Their lives were then at command for they had not then learnt to fight for Christ but their obedience to any thing against his Law was not to be commanded for they had perfectly learn't to dye for him Therefore there was no power then to command this change or if there had been any it had been in vain SECT 9. What device then shall we study or to what fountain shall we reduce this strange pretended alteration Can it enter into our hearts to think that all the Presbyters and other Christians then being the Apostles Schollers could be generally ignorant of the Will of Christ touching the necessity of a Presbyterial Government Or dare we adventure to think them so strangely wicked all the World over as against knowledge and conscience to conspire against it Imagine the spirit of Diotrephes had entered into some or a great many of the Presbyters and possessed them with an ambitious desire of a forbiddden superiority was it possible they should attempt and atchieve it once without any opposition or contradiction and besides that the contagion of this ambition should spread it self and prevail without stop or controul nay without any noyse or notice taken of it through all the Churches in the World all the watchmen in the mean time being so fast asleep and all the dogs so dumb that not so much as one should open his mouth against it SECT 10. But let us suppose though it be a horrible untruth that the Presbyters and people then were not so good Christians as the Presbyterians are now that they were generally so negligent to retain the government of Christ's Church commanded by Christ which we now are so zealous to restore yet certainly we must not forget nor deny that they were men as we are And if we look upon them but as meer naturall men yet knowing by experience how hard a thing it is even for policy arm'd with power by many attempts and contrivances and in a long time to gain upon the liberty of any one people undoubtedly we shall never entertain so wild an imagination as that among all the Christian Presbyteries in the World neither conscience of duty nor love of liberty nor aversenesse from pride and usurpation of others over them should prevail so much with any one as to oppose this pretended universal invasion of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ and the liberty of Christians SECT 11. When I shall see therefore all the Fables in the Metamorphosis acted and prove stories when I shall see all the Democracies and Aristocracies in the World lye down and sleep and awake into Monarchies then will I begin to believe that Presbyterial Government having continued in the Church during the Apostles times should presently after against the Apostles doctrine and the will of Christ be whirl'dabout like a scene in a masque and transformed into Episcopacy In the mean time while these things remain thus incredible and in humane reason impossible I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been universally received in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an alteration And therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being confessed to be so Ancient and Catholique must be granted also to be Apostolique Quod erat demonstrandum FINIS The Preface to the READER THe eminent abilities in the most noble Author of the ensuing learned Discourse and learneder Reply can scarcely be imagined unknown to any whom this language can reach But if any such there be I shall desire them to learne the perfections of that most excellent Person rather from the Dedication then this Preface the designe of which is onely to give the Reader some satisfaction concerning the nature of this Controversie in it selfe and of these Dissertations in particular The Romish Doctrine of their owne Infallibility as it is the most generall Controversie betweene them and all other Churches excluded by them from their Communion So it is of such a comprehensive nature that being proved and clearely demonstrated it would without question draw all other Churches so excluded to a most humble submission and acknowledgement nay to an earnest desire of a suddaine Reconciliation upon any Termes whatsoever For howsoever they please to speak and write of our Hereticall and obstinate persistance in manifest Errors yet I hope they cannot seriously thinke we would be so irrationall as to contradict him whom we our selves think beyond a possibillity of erring and to dispute perpetually with them whom onely to heare were to be satisfied But when they have propounded their Decisions to be beleeved and imbraced by us as Infallibly true and that because they propound them who in their own opinion are Infallible if notwithstanding some of those Decisions seeme to us to be evidently false because clearely contradictory to that which they themselves propound as infallibly true that is the Word of God surely we cannot be blamed if we have desired their Infallibility to be most clearly demonstrated at least to a higher degree of evidence then we have of the contradiction of their Decisions to the infallible Rule Wherefore The great Defenders of the Doctrine of the Church of England have with more then ordinary diligence endeavoured to view the grounds of this Controversie and have written by the advantage either of their learning accurately or of their parts most strongly or of the cause it selfe most convincingly against that darling Infallibility How clearely this Controversie hath been managed with what evidence of truth discussed what successe so much of reason hath had cannot more plainly appeare then in this that the very name of Infallibility before so much exalted begins now to be very burthensome even to the maintainers of it Insomuch as one of their latest and ablest Proselytes Hugh Paulin de Cressy lately Dean of Laghlin c. in Ireland and Prebendary of Windsor in England in his Exomologesis or faithfull Narration of the occasion and motives of his Conversion hath dealt very clearly with the World and told us that this Infallibilitie is an unfortunate Word That Mr. Chillingworth hath cumbated against it with too too great successe so great that he could wish the Word were forgotten or at least layd by That not onely Mr. Chillingworth whom he still worthily admires but we the rest of the poore Protestants have in very deed very much to say for our selves when we are pressed unnecessarily with it And therefore Mr. Cressy's advise to all the Romanists is this that we may never be invited to combat the authority of the Church under that notion Oh the strength of Reason rightly managed O the power of Truth clearly declared that it should force an emnient member of the Church of Rome whose
one of your Party that if this opinion had indeed had Tradition it could never have been so totally extinguish'd I answer that I affirm not that it had but onely that if the rules of your part be good and valid then it had I am sure it hath better colour to plead upon then any of those other doctrines which you impose upon us Besides although it had yet when Doctors of great authority with the people had won upon many first not to think it Tradition and then not true and lastly their courage encreasing with their multitude for Saint Hierome durst not call it had made it accounted an Heresie it is not strange that none should rise to oppose it for by that time burning was come in fashion which was a ready way to answer all objections and end all controversies especiall Piety being grown more cold and so men lesse apt to suffer for opinions and the times more ignorant and so men lesse able to examine what had beleeved before them But you who affirm that your Church receives nothing but what hath come to her by Verball Tradition down from the Apostles must not onely destroy the Arguments which prove this to have had Tradition which you or any else will be never able to do but must affirm that the contrary hath such which yet their most ancient opposers never pretended too but scoft at the opinion as rediculous and savouring of Judaisme which as wise men and as good Christians as they before them beleeved to be Orthodox Let us next consider that controversie which more afflicted the Church and for a longer time then any other that between the Arrians and their Adversaries and let us see whether even against those there were any such Tradition as you speak of First then I pray mark what Cardinal Perron confesseth that an Arrian will be desirous to have his cause tried by those Authors we now have which lived before the Question arose for there saith he will be found the Son is the instrument of his Father The Father commanded the Son when things were to be made the Father and the Son are aliud aliud which who should at this day say now the language of the Church is better examin'd would be accompted an Arrian Now though there be no reason for you to disbelieve so learned a Prelate in a matter of Fact especially since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet if you please to reconsider those Authors seriously if you have not mark't it before as Praejudication blinds extreamly you will then confesse it Sure then if Fathers in the first ages taught their Children that so they had receiv'd from theirs as the doctrine of the Apostles how could the chiefe Pillars of Christianity have been ignorant of it or if they knew it how would they ever have written so directly against their knowledge For that answer which Saint Hierome gives as Saint Austine to the Pelagians gians that before Arrius arose the Ecclesiasticall Writers spoke minus caute with lesse circumspection though it brings some salve to the present objection yet it is a weapon against Tradition in generall for if through want of care the best and wisest men vs'd to contradict Tradition as you must grant they did then sure much more likely when they taught by word of mouth when lesse care is alwaies us'd then in Bookes and how then can any age be sure that by this reason of minus caute loquuti sunt their Ancestors have not mistaken their Fathers and mislead their Posterity Look but into Athanasius and see but what he answers to what is brought against him out of Dionysius Alexandrinus truly in my opinion when he strives to make it Catholique Doctrine he doth it with no lesse pulling and halling then Sancta Clara useth to agree the articles of the English Church with the Tenets of the Roman Consider what eighty Bishops and those Orthodoxe decreed against Paulus Samosatenus and if you make it consent with Athanasius his Creed I shall believe that you have discouer'd a way how to reconcile both Parts of a Contradiction This I say not as intending by it to prove the Arrian opinion to be true but that the contrary Party insisted not upon your grounds but drew their beliefe out of Scripture for if there had been such a common and constant Verball Tradition the chiefe Christians would not through want of Caution have contradicted it neither could Constantine if it had been then as known a Part of the Christian Religion as Christ's Resurrection have ever so slightly esteemed the Question when it first arose neither would Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria have remain'd any while in suspence as Zozomen saith he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this being then a Question newly started and spoken of before but by Accidents and so peradventure minus caute for the same Author saies that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were therefore faine to try it by Scripture esteeming Written Tradition as sufficient a Rule as Verball as you may see by Constantine's own words at the Councel of Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bookes of the Evangelists and the Apostles and the Oracles of the Ancient Prophets teach us clearly what we are to think of the Divinity Let us therefore out of these Divinity-inspir'd discourses seek the solutions of our Questions which being the Emperours Proposition and passing uncontradicted which the Bishops would not have suffr'd it to do if they had known yours to be so much the best and most certaine way and this so hazardous as you suppose we have reason to believe that they for want of your direction made the Scripture their Rule and sought out for Truth by the same way that we damnable Hereticks do and by that condemn'd the Arrians as not having such a Tradition as you speak of or if they had which is very unlikely counting it so insufficient as that they were not to conclude by that Neither did onely that ancient and not yours Councell but even your own Modern ones shew that they went upon other grounds since to have had every Bishop askt what he receiv'd from his Teachers as receiv'd from theirs as come downe from the Apostles would sure have been the shortest way to find Truth and if they had thought it the best too it would have sav'd the Friers at Trent many a long dispute out of Scripture Fathers and Reason and the Bishops many a weary sessron before any thing could be determined or the Parties brought to agree Besides there is another reason if I may be pardon'd a little insisting upon my digression which perswades me that your own Councels define not upon your grounds that is because suppose a thousand Catholique Bishops meet and define any thing yet wee know it is not among you believ'd de Fide without it be confirmed by the Pope which shewes plainly enough that you think not
with the Protestants by want of Succession Vocation and such like Bull-beggers would goe over to them as I have heard Spalato meant to doe if they were not kept by an unwillingnesse to change the spirituall tyrannie of the Pope for the temporall of the Turke But although there were no such Churches or they made no such claime yet having shew'd out of your own Authors that some opinions have not been constantly delivered by Tradition but have entered into the Church upon the grounds which might at least possiblie deceive them of Scripture Reason and Revelation and others knockt apace to be let in I hope we may be excused for making a reveiw of all and examining what doctrines have been brought in if not by Scripture which we think reasonable at least by comparing what this age teacheth and requires with what the first Ages did to which we are encourag'd by your selves who make agreement with Antiquitie the chief mark of the Church unlesse you meane your selves to be onelie Judges even of those things by which you bid us to judge you For our examinations by reason I cannot tell why you mislike it since those who trust their own reason least trust it yet to chuse for them one whom they may trust against which all Arguments drawn from her fallibilitie without question lie Your Religion is built upon your Church her authoritie upon reasons which we think slight and fallacious and your selves think but prudentiall and probable ought we not then nay must we not examine them by Reason or receive them upon your word And allowing them probable reason yet I have still cause to examine further whether your superstructions be not more unreasonable then your foundations are reasonable for then I cannot receive a more unprobable doctrine then that is probable which it is prov'd by Yet in respect of things appearing divers at divers times I doe not like my own way so well as to esteem it absolutelie infallible but though I keep it because I account it the best yet I will promise to leave it when you can shew me a better which will be hard to doe because you cannot prove it to be better but by reason against which proofe and consequentlie against whatsoever it proves your own Objections remaine For to be perswaded by reason that to such an authoritie I ought to submit it is still to follow reason and not to quit her And by what else is it that you examine what the Apostles taught when you examine that by ancient Tradition and ancient Tradition by a present Testimonie Yet when I speake thus of finding the Truth by Reason I intend not to exclude the Grace of God which I doubt not for as much as is necessarie to Salvation is readie to concurre to our Instruction as the Sunne is to our sight if we by a wilfull winking chuse not to make not it but our selves guilty of our blindnesse Indeed if we love darknesse better then light and instead of esteeming it shut it out it were but just in God if we so continue long hardened not to suffer it to see after when we would since so obstinatelie we would not when we might like to that which happened to those Englishmen of whom Froissard speakes who having long bound up an eye and made a foolish vow never to see with that till they could see their Mistresses when they returned and unbound them they saw nothing but that they could not see Yet when I speake of Gods grace I mean not that it infuseth a knowledge without reason but workes by it as by its Minister and dispels those Mists of Passions which doe wrap up Truth from our Understandings For if you speake of its instructing any other way though I confesse it is possible as God may give us a sixth sence yet it is not ordinarie and ought not to be brought to dispute because so we leave visible Arguments to flie to invisible and your Adversarie when he hath found your play will be soon at the same locke and I beleeve in this sence infus'd Faith is but the same thing otherwise apparell'd which you have so often laught at in the Puritans under the title of private Spirit This being supposed either this Principle hath remain'd unto her ever since her beginning or she took it up in some one Age of the sixteen if she took it up she then thought she bad nothing in her but what she had receiv'd from her fore-fathers and if she thought so she knew it This Principle is not yet taken up by her and suppose it were yet since some other opinions are confess'd to have been receiv'd by her not from a constant Tradition but Scripture and Revelations and not at once but by little and little this very Principle of receiving nothing but from Tradition might it selfe have been receiv'd not from Tradition nor need it have been in any one Age of the sixteen but some might have taught it in one Age more in another and all at last and this so farre from being an impossibilitie that it were no wonder Let us adde that the multitude of this Church is so dispersed through so many Countries and Languages that it is impossible they should agree together upon a false Determination to affirme with one consent a Falsity for Truth no Interest being able to be common to them all to produce such an effect Although so many Countries could not so well agree upon it at once yet some might so perswade others that in time and by degrees the disease may be grown epidemicall And trulie considering in everie Countrie how few there are who thinke of Religion at all or of them againe who walke in it by the directions of their owne eyes even of them who take upon them to shew that way to others but for the most part which they did much more in more ignorant times when Scriptura sacra cum vetustis authoribus frigebat are lead by some few whom they reverence for their Piety and learning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose words are accounted lawes and they againe by a Thomas or a Scot or at best by Austine or Hierome and thinke it Tradition enough to have it from them for else why thinke they to beare us downe with the Authoritie of one or two Fathers if they thinke that not ground enough to goe upon themselves it seemes little stranger to me that whole Countries should let in not ancient opinions then that a few should since a few in all places have ever govern'd all the rest of this I will bring two very known examples out of the Ecclesiasticall Historie The first is of Valens the Emperour who being himselfe an Arrian and making peace with a Nation which was not so and supposing that they would never have firme concord with him to whom in Faith he was so opposite was advised to perswade their Bishop to change his beleife for which end having
them And first how it happened that divers Heretickes pretended to Tradition as the Chiliasts Gnosticks Carpocratians and divers others yet they with their Traditions have been rejected and the Church onely leftin claime of Tradition For if we looke into what Catholicke Tradition is and what the Herelicks pretended the question will remaine voided For the Catholicke Church cals Tradition that Doctrine which was publiquely delivered and the Hereticks called Tradition a kinde of secret Doctrine either gathered out of private conversation with the Apostles or rather pretended that the Apostles besides what they publiquely taught the world had another mysticall way proper to Schollers more endeared which came not to publique view whereas the force and energie of a Tradition residing in the multitude of hearers and being planted in the perpetuall life and actions of Christians it must have such a publicity that it cannot be unknown amongst them Of the Carpocratians and Gnosticks I have spoke before but sure for the Chiliasts this is onely said and not proved Howsoever this undeniablie appeares that either Pappias and Irenaeus thought not this Tradition to have come such a way as you speake of or else they thought it no hereticall way but such a one as was at least reasonablie to be assented to and both what was the way by which Traditions ought to come and by which this came they were more likely to know then those of following ages which proves that this Objection as much as concernes them especiallie remaines still so strong that in spite of Fevardentius it will be better to answer it Scalpello quam Calamo with a Pen-knife then with a Pen and no Confuter will serve for it but an Expurgatory Index no non si tuus afforet Hector if Cardinally Perron were alive I must by the way take notice of what yon say here that Tradition must have such a Publicity as cannot be unknown among Christians and desire you to agree this with what you say in the next Paragraph that the Apostles may not have preached in some Countries some Doctrines which we now are bound to receive as Traditions for sure those Doctrines were then unknown among many Christians and if they had been necess ry sure the Apostles would no where have forgot wich so good a Prompter as the Holy Ghost to have taught them If they were not then necessary how have they grown to be so since Besides I appeal to your Conscience whether it appeart that the doctrine of the Exchequer of Superabundant merits of which the Pope is Lord Treasurer and by vertue of which he dispenseth his pardons to all the Soules in Purgatory appear to have been known evern to any of the best Christians and whether if it had been known to them as a Tradition being a Doctrine which necessitates at least Wisdome and Charity a continuall practice of sueing for them and of giving them it were possible that of what they knew such infinite Volumes of Authors should make no mention Suppose some private Doctrine of an Apostle to some Disciple should be published and recorded by that Disciple and some others this might well be a Truth but never obtain the force of a Catholique Position that is such as it would be a damnation to reject because the descent from the Apostle is not notorious and fit to sway the body of the whole Church I confesse that to have been no more generally delivered will prove that the Apostles thought not such a Doctrine necessary else their Charity would not have suffered them to have so much concealed it but yet to any such Doctrine it is impossible that any Christian who believes the testimony that it came from the Apostles should deny his assent because it were to deny the Authority upon which all the rest is grounded for the Church pretends to her Authority from them and not they from her and howsoever such a Doctrine although not necessary could not be damnable as you make this Besides here will first arise a Question not easie to be decided how great a multitude of Witnesses will serve to be notorious and fit to sway the body of the Church especially so many having not for a long while been thought fit even by Catholiques though attesting doctrines since received by you all and considering that multitude of your Church which believe the immaculate Conception in as high a degree as it is possible without excommunicating the deniers who either walk not by that which you count the onely Catholique Rule or else claime such a Tradition who yet are not thought fit to sway the rest Secondly I pray observe how easie it was for the two first Ages at least the chiefe of them and all that are extant to have given assent to Traditions so unsufficiently testified or to have mistaken Doctrines under that notion for so they did to this of the Chiliasts and then after for it to spread till it were generall land last as long as men last upon their authority and when once it is so spread how shall we then discover how small an Originall it had when peradventure the head and spring of it will be as hard to find as that of Nilus so that the greatest part of what you receive might possibly appear to be no certainer nor better built if we could digg to the foundation Wherefore since the delivery of a Tradition by subsequent Ages hath its validity onely from the authority of the first me thinks you should either think that they received none but upon better grounds or else think these grounds good Thirdly I know not why you resolve this opinion of the Chiliasts to have had onely such a private Tradition for though they name John the Disciple and mention certaine Priests who heard it from him yet they deny not a moregeneraldelivery of it but peradventure least men might think that the generall opinion that it came from the Apostles might arise from places of Scripture which fallacie their testimony when not so fully expressed was still in danger of concerning any point but that these books were written by these men they therefore thought it fit to name to us their witnesses that it came from Christs owne mouth and in what words And if they had done so much on your side for the differences between us I believe you would now have few Protestant adversaries left for you would have converted the greater part and by that have been enabled to burn the smaller The second Question may be How it cometh to passe that some things which at first bindes not the Churches beliefe afterwards commeth to bind it For if it were ever a Tradition it ever must needs be publique and ever bind the Church and if once it were not it appears not how ever it could come to be for if this age for example have it not how can it deliver it to the next that followeth But if we consider that the
embroiderie will not keepe him from discerning manie bracks in your stuffe To prove which I will bring many reasons besides what I have taught alreadie by which it shall I hope appeare why those whom you call Hereticks should not be put to death although Malefactors may although even the lawfulnesse of that since other punishments which would not shorten their time of repentance might peradventure serve to represse them is not absolutelie certaine First Malefactors plainlie offend against their Consciences at least thinke not themselves bound by them to commit their villanies neither pretend they otherwise which they whom you call Hereticks either bona fide follow or doe for ought at least you can know Secondlie What are Malefices must be known before Malefactors and Heresies before Hereticks now of the first Mankinde agrees but of the second but you onely a small part of Christians and yet you differ too about the waies of knowing-them and consequentlie whether some things be Heresies or no as for example whether the Oath of Alleagiance containe any wherein since some of you are deceived me thinkes it should incline you to thinke it not impossible for you all to doe so in what you all agree to be such Thirdlie Malefactors are not or should not be punished for such without a plaine knowledge that such they are but although there were an impossibilitie of mistaking what is Heresie yet there is no possibilitie of knowing who are Hereticks the forme of which is obstinacie a secret and to man an undiscoverable qualitie whom he onelie should punish who onelie knowes Fourthlie Malefactors are certaine to hurt others whereas neither are Heretickes sure to perswade any and if they doe yet they may hurt none since who receives their beleife bona fide and through meer error is unharmed by it Fifthlie Whom they doe harme it must be through their own fault and by their own consent whereas without either the Malefactors are cause of much mischiefe even to the most guiltlesse Sixthlie Malefactors passing whollie unpunish'd peradventure not put to death would bring a certaine destruction to the state which temporall Magistrates are appointed to watch over which yet in speculative opinions is not concerned Seventhly The punishment even by death of Malefactors brings not any temptation of sinning upon them the same to others is in all probabilitie a cause to keep many from a carefull search of Gods Truth least they might find the punishable beleefe to be the true one and from professing it when they think they have found it both which are sinns of the first magnitude Eigthly This course with Malefactors was not for ought appears ever thought unlawfull in the purest times of Christianity and was then in use whereas towards errors in beleefe it was disallowed of them by the chiefe and long before death was at all inflicted upon them though then understood as well the danger of Heresie and were as carefull to preserve their flocks from all danger by all lawfull waies as any since Ninthly It no way redounds to Christs Glory that Malefactors be unpunisht but it makes much for it that his Army appears to consist of Volunteers and not of Press'd men that his Truth should prevaile by no humane force but onely by the power of the first teacher and the light of the Doctrine which for us unbidden so to assist is to think the Arke must fall if we hold not forth our hands to hold it up and takes from it the honour of subsisting by the way by which it took roote when to borrow Saint Chysostomes words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The weak were to hard for the strong and twelve for the World and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They being naked and their adversaries armed Tenthly That death is the most effectuall way to suppresse Malefactors you say reason and experience shewes and it is generally agreed of but in this case it seems even to your best men the worst course as appears by Iburranes resolution concerning the Hyper-Ephanians by the 267 Page of grave and judicious Cardinall D' Ossat his Letters by the Epistle of Cardinall Richelieu to his King before a Book of Controversie and by Erasmus his Testimonie who tells us that a Carmelite having then this power in his hands Ubicunque saevitiam exercuit Carmelita ibi diceres fuisse factum Haereseâ—â— sementum wheresoever he exercised his crueltie he seemed to have sowed Heresie All which reasons make me beleeve that there is much difference between the striving to destroy these two sorts of men and if there were not yet for fore-touched reasons and others which I will touch at I should as soone think it unlawfull to put Malefactors to death as lawfully to kill Hereticks For indeed since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it disadvantageth what you would aide to seem to beleeve that truth without other assistance would not sooner roote out falshood then that it that the Orthodox are not more likely to cure the seduced then to be infected by them and that there is no way to end the Heresies but by ending the Hereticks And thus you runne into three inconveniencies First You put reasonable scruples into considering mens minds least as a Greek Orator saith against Ulysses for striking Thersites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was a signe he could not confute him that he struck him so that it be want of arguments which makes you fall to blowes and cause them to suspect that if you were not peradventure for some better reasons then appear to them diffident of your cause you would give your adversaries leave to speak as loud as them pleased and not seek so suspiciously to stop their mouthes whilst they dispute with you at as much odds and upon tearmes of as much disadvantage as Saint Paul did with the Grecian Jewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he disputed against them but they went about to stay him Secondly It destroies those plausible Arguments so often used of Unity and Tradition and Multitude for first Uniformitie may be induced by power but Unitie and Impunitie can never be parted all other agreement being but as a theefe and a robbed person agreed the one to take his purse and the other to give it againe Againe Tradition it lames as much for how can any man tell but that two parts claiming contraty Traditions or one part claiming it upon false grounds and the other denying it the truth may not by this force have been over-born when we receive not what men would have delivered Posteritie but what Power would suffer them Againe how shall we know but that the greater part of your multitude beleeves not as they professe no man knowing his Neighbour to be of his mind when it is so probable that many may not think as they speak when it is not lawfull for all to speak as they think Thirdly By this way you are causes that you suffer often where you have not the State on your side as much
and all the rest upon Scripture and he shall see that relying upon Scripture cannot draw to an Unitie those who relie upon it and more then one cannot relie upon Tradition If all that relie upon Tradition be Catholicks you must admit the Eastern Churches into your Communion although you now account them both Scismaticks and Hereticks If all Catholicks do relie upon Tradition as their onelie grounds and Tradition be so sure and infallible and unmistakable a deliverer as you would perswade us how come so manie differences between you some ever counting those things matter of Faith which others do not which differences shew if they all relie on these Questions upon the ground you say they do that more then one may relie upon Tradition and neither can Tradition any more then Scripture draw to an Unitie those who relie upon it if either neither part do or either do not then Tradition is not the Common Tenure of Catholicks not onelie in different opinions but even in such as are most de fide and as both parts think nothing but a definition and some scarce that to make the Holders of the contrary to them Hereticks since if it were neither could one part of Catholicks relie upon any other then the Catholick ground neither is it to be doubted but that side which builds their opinion upon an Hereticall foundation against another beleeved upon a Catholick ground would long agone have been among you exploded and the Pope have been not onelie with so much paines perswaded but even of himselfe readie to have past his censure upon them if not for their superstructions yet for their foundation If I will be a Christian I must be of one side If you mean I must be of one side that is take one of these grounds I answer That I take both one from the other Scripture from Tradition though not from the present Tradition of a Part but from the Universall one of the first Christians opposed by none but by them who were instantlie counted by the generallitie heterodox and as soon opposed as known If you mean that I must be of one side in points I whollie denie any such necessitie By falling on the one side I see my fortune in thousands who have gone before me to wit that I shall be to seek all my life time as I see they are and how greatlie they magnifie verie weak pieces On the other side I see everie man who followeth as farr as he followeth it is at quiet I see not but the greatest part of those who take the ground which you mislike are yet setled and confident enough in their opinion and if they continued alwaies seeking Truth for the love of it I know not why they should be the lesse likely to find Heaven Neither think I that you will say nay it is plaine by your own words that you will not say that Saint Austine had been damned if he had died in his search nor consequently any other in his case And whereas you say that all who follow the other are at quiet as farr as they follow it I answer So are all who fixedly beleeve themselves to follow an infallible although indeed a false Guide as the Mahumetans being led by their Mufty Which proves Quiet no sufficient caution for Truth nor Securitie for Safetie and that supposing yours the more easie and satisfying way it followes not that it is the more reasonable And for what you say of a mans duty to judge himself rigorously whether he seek as he ought I subscribe to that opinion and approve of your Councell Besides this he must have this care that he seek what the Nature of the subject can yeeld and not as these Physitians who when they have promised no lesse then immortality can at last onely reach to some conservation of health or youth in some small degree So I could wish the Author well to assure himself First that there is possible an infallibilitie before he be to earnest to be contented with nothing lesse For what if humane nature should not be capable of so great a good would he therefore think fitting to live without any Religion because he could not get such a one as himself desired though with more then a mans wish What you now say I confesse is very rationall as indeed all you say is as much as your cause will suffer and I require you not therefore to prove your opinions to be infallible by infallible arguments as necessarie to be done in it self but as necessarie to be done by them of whose opinions their Churches infallibilitie is not onelie a part but a ground and that the chief if not the onelie one and of which an infallible certaintie is the first and main condition of their Communion and our want of it one of their maine Objections against us He that will make a judgement in an Art he is not Master in if he be deceived it is to be imputed to himself The Phrase commandeth us to believe every man in his Art he who knoweth and understandeth himselfe beleeveth not Therefore when wee see Masters in an Art we are not skild in oppose us we may beleeve we are in the wrong which will breed this Resolution in the Author of the discourse that if himself be not skild in all those waies in which he pursues his search he must find himself obleiged to seek Masters who be both well skilled and the matter being subject to faction also very honest and upright men or else he doth not quitt himself before God Truelie I am farr from being Master either in this or any other Art but if for this cause I ought to doubt and because much learneder persons oppose me I ought to beleeve my self in the wrong then so ought those of your part to do who are as Ignorant as I we having many much more learned then they who oppose them and take our part though therefore I think not of my self what Tully in a Complement would perswade one of his Friends that Nemo est qui sapientius mihi possit suadere meipso yet I dare not chuse as you would have me some Master to search for me and beleeve him blind-fold though if I would I see no cause why to chuse any from among you who have so many able Teachers at home for you confessing that the matters are subject to Faction and it being certaine that not onelie who are honest is impossible to be known but that eagernesse and desire to have what they think Truth prevaile makes even the honest men sometimes deviate from the line of exact honestie and lie for God which he not onelie needs not but forbids as is to be seen too frequentlie in the Quotations of both sides I conceive it the best way to follow my own Reason since I know I have no will to cozen my self as they may have to cozen me Especially since
learnt to give the reverence as not to doubt of what they said because they said it from all others he expected proofe from Scripture or Reason Thirdly The Church of Rome condemnes severall opinions of his and therefore she ought not to find fault with them who imitate her example Twelfthly He addes two reasons more The consent of the Fathers of all ages And the confession of Protestants To the Frst I answer That I know not of any such and am the more unapt to beleeve it because Mr. Mountague vouchsafes not to insist upon it nor to quote any which I guesse he would have done but that he misdoubted their strength Secondly Suppose that all the Fathers which speake of this did say so yet if they say it but as private Doctors and claime no Tradition I know not why they should weigh more then so many of the now learned who having more helpes from Arts and no fewer from Nature are not worse searchers into what is Truth though lesse capable of being Witnesses to what was Tradition Thirdly They themselves often professe they expect not to be read as Judges but as to be judged by their and our Rule the Canonicall Scriptures Fourthly Let him please to read about the Immaculate Conception Rosa Salmeron and Wadding and he will find me as submissive to Antiquity even whilst I reject it as those of their own Party for they to prefer new opinions before old are faine to prefer new Doctors before old and to confesse the latter more perspicatious and to differ from those of former times with as little scruple as he would from Calvin whom Maldonat on purpose to oppose confesseth he chuseth a new Interpretation before that of all the Ancients which no witnesse but my eyes could have made me beleeve nay and produce other points wherein their Church hath decreed against the Fathers to perswade her to do so againe althoug Campian with an eloquent brag would perswade us that they are all as much for him as Gregory the thirteenth who was then Pope To the Second I answer That Infallibility is not by us denied to the Church of Rome with an intention of allowing it to particular Protestants how wise and learned soever Thirteenthly He saies next that he after resolved to inform himself in other points which seemed to him unwarrantable and superstitious and found onely his own mistakes gave him occasion of Scandall To this I answer That I cannot well answer any thing unlesse he had specified the points but I can say that there are many as picturing God the Father which is generally thought lawfull and as generally practised their offerings to the Virgin Mary which onely differs from the Heresie of the Colltridians in that a Candle is not a Cake their praying to Saints and beleeving de fide that they heare us though no way made certaine that they do so and many more which without any mistake of his might have given him occasion to be still scandalized For whereas he saith that those points were grounded upon the authority of the ancient Fathers which was refused as insufficient by Protestants I answer That none of these I name have any ground in the Ancientest nay the first is by them disallowed and if any other superstition of theirs have from them any ground yet they who depart from so many of the Ancients in severall opinions cannot by any reason be excused for retaining any error because therein they consent nor have the Protestants cause to receive it from them as a sufficient Apologie neither hath he to follow the Fathers rather then Protestants in a cause in which not the Persons but the Reasons were to have been considered For when Saint Hierome was by this way both brought into and held in a strange error though he speakes something like Mr. Mountague Patiaris me errare cum talibus Suffer me to erre with such men yet he could not obtaine Saint Austines leave who would not suffer him but answered their Reasons and neglected their Authorities Fourteenthly He speakes of his Religion super-infusing Loyalty and if he had onely said it destroied or weakned it not I who wish that no doubt of his alleagiance may once enter his mind to whom we all owe it but professe my self his humble Servant and no waies his enemy though his adversarie would then made no answer but since he speakes as if Popery were the way to obedience I cannot but say that though no Tenet of their whole Church which I know make at all against it yet there are prevailing opinions on that side which are not fit to make good subjects when their King and they are of different perswasions For besides that Cardinall D' Ossat an Author which Mr. Mountague I know hath read because whosoeuer hath but considered State matters must be as well skilled in him as any Priest in his Breviary tell us that it is the Spaniards Maxime That Faith is not to be kept amongst Hereticks and more that the Pope intimated as much in a discourse intended to perswade the King of France to forsake the Queen of England he saith moreover speaking in another place speaking about the Marquizat of Saluces that they hold at Rome that the Pope to avoid a probable danger of the encreasing of Heresie may take a Territory from the true Owner and dispose of it to another and many also defend that he hath power to depose an Hereticall Prince and of Heresie he makes himself the Judge So that though I had rather my tongue should cleave to the roofe of my mouth then that I should deny that a Papist may be a good Subject even to a King whom he accounts an Heretick since I veriy beleeve that I my self know very many very good yet Popely is like to an ill aire wherein though many keep their healthes yet many are infected so that at most they are good Subjects but during the Popes pleasure and the rest are in more danger then if they were out of it To conclude I beleeve that what I have said may at least serve if he will descend to consider it to move Mr. Mountague to a further search and for Memorandums in it which if it do he will be soone able to give as much better Reasons for my conclusion that such a Visible Church neither need nor can be shewed as his understanding is degrees above mine I hope also by comparing the body of their beleefe and the ground of their authority the little that can be drawn out of the fourth of the Ephesians with the Miriads of contradiction in Transubstantiation he will come to see that their Pillars are too weak to hold up any building be it never so light and their building is too heavie to be held up by any Pillars be they never so strong and trust he will return to us whom he will find that he hath causelessely left if he be which I doubt not so ingenuous as not to hold an opinion because he hath turned to it nor to stay onely because he went FINIS * See the Collection of Petitions for Episcopacy printed for Will. Shears * To whom two others also from Geneva may be added Daniel Chamierus in Panstratia tom 2. lib. 10. cap. 6. §. 24. and Nicol. Vedelius Exercitat 3. in epist. Ignatii ad Philadelph cap. 14. Exercit. 8. in epist. ad Mariam cap. 3. which is fully also demonstated in D. Hammonds dissertations against Blondel which never were answerd never will by the testimonies of those who wrote in the very next Age after the Apo stles Tacitus Object Answ. Synesius Ovid. Metamorph Xenophon Hist. 3. Euseb. Orat. de Laud. Const. * De Coroná Wadd Pag. 271. Wadding p. 124. Page 97. Page 90. Page 400. Page 57. Page 127. Page 275. Wadding p. 334. Vincent Lir. Wadd Pag. 282 Camp Ethicks Lib. Con. R. Jac. Pag. 633. Theodoret. Lib. 15. C. 28 Pag. 271. Tom. 13. Pag. 193. Pag. 208. and 687. Tacitus Object Resp. Object Resp. 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 5. Object Resp. Wadd Pag. 30. His Opusc. Dr. D. Object Resp. Praefat. in Hillar Pag. 496. Pag. 497. Epist. Pag. 1164. Pag. 296. 1 Edict Tom. 13. Pag. 467 In Elucidar Deiparae Pag. 1113. Wadd Pag. 125. Pag. 270 Pag. 202. Pag. 203. Pag. 204. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Theodoret lib 4. Object Resp. Cap. 6 Lib. 3 de Romano Pontifice Object Resp. Object Resp. Lib. Con. Reg. Iac. Pag. 892. Object Resp. Tertul. De fide Symb. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Arist. Ethick Con. Reg. Iac. Pag. 708. Object Resp. Arrian Eras. Ep. Rhetor. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Salust Object Resp. Tom. 13. Pag. 468. Object Resp Object Resp. Object Resp. Philos. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Object Resp. Resp. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Resp. Repl. Tom. 9. An. 726. de fide Simbol 2 Lib. C. 2. Vers. 11. 12 13 6 Cap. St. Johan
necessary part of Faith and we can be no surer of any thing proved then we are of that which proves it and if he be fallible no part is the more infallible for his siding with them So if the Church be divided I have no way to know the true Church but by searching which agrees with Scripture and Antiquitie and so judging accordingly but this is not to submit my self to her opinions as my Guide which they tell us is necessarie which course if they approve not of as fit for a learned man they are in a worse case for the ignorant who can take no course at all nor is he the better at all for his Guide the Church whilst two parts dispute which is it and that by arguments he understands not If I grant the Pope or a Councell by him called to be infallible yet I conceive their decrees can be no sufficient grounds by their own axioms of divine Faith For first of all no Councell is valid not approved by the Pope for thus they overthrow that held at Ariminum and a Pope chosen by Simony is ipso facto no Pope I can have then no certainer grounds for the infallibility of those decrees and consequently for my beleefe of them then I have that the choice of him is neither directly nor indirectly Simoniacall Secondly suppose him Pope and to have confirmed their decrees yet that these are the decrees of a Councell or that he hath confirmed them I can have but an uncontradicted confession of many men for if another Councell should declare these to have been the Acts of another former Councell I should need againe some certain way of knowing how this declaration is a Councell which is no ground say they of Faith I am sure not so good and generall a one as we have that the Scripture is Scripture which yet they will not allow any to be certaine of but from them Thirdly For the sence of their decrees I can have no better expounder then reason which if though I mistake I shall not be damned for following why shall I for mistaking the sence of the Scripture or why am I a lesse fit Interpreter of the one then of the other and when both seeme equally cleare and yet contradictory shall not I affoon beleeve Scripture which is without doubt of as great authority But I doubt whether Councells are fit deciders of Questions for such they cannot be if they beget more and men are in greater doubts afterwards none of the former being diminished then they were at ffrst Now I conceive there arise so many out of this way that the learned cannot end all nor the ignorant know all As besides the fore-named considerations who is to call them the Pope or Kings who are to have voices in them Bishops onely or Priests also whether the Pope or Councell be superiour and the last need the approbation of the first debated amongst themselves Whether any Countries not being called or not being there as the Abissines so great a part of Christianitie and not resolvedly condemned by them for Hereticks were absent at the Councell of Trent make it not generall Whether if it be one not every where received as when the Bishops sent from some places have exceeded their Commission as in the Councell of Florence it be yet of necessitie to be subscribed unto Whether there were any surreption or force used and whether those disanull the Acts Whether the most voices are to be held the Act of the Councell or those of all required which never yet agreed Or whether two parts will serve as in the Tridentine Synod A considerable doubt because Nicephorus Callistus relalating the resolution of a Councell at Rome against that of Ariminum makes him give three reasons One That the Pope of Rome was not present The Second That most did not agree to it The third That others thither gathered were displeased at their resolutions Which proves that in their opinions if either most not present agree not to it or all present be not pleased with it a Councell hath no power to bind All these doubts I say perswade me that whatsoever brings with it so many new Questions can be no fit end of the old Then if before a generall Councell have defined a Question it be lawfull to hold either way and damnable to do so after I desire to know why it is so Scripture and Tradition seem to me not to say so but if they did so I suppose you will grant they do this Doctrine That the Soules of the blessed shall see God before the day of Judgement and not be kept in secret Receptacles for without this the Doctrine of Prayers to Saints cannot stand and yet for denying this Bellarmine excuseth Pope John the 22 th because the Church he meanes I doubt not a generall Councell had not then condemned it I desire to know why he should not be condemned as well without one as many Hereticks that are held so by their Church yet condemned by none which if he make to be the Rule of Heresie it had been happy to have lived before the Councell of Nice when no opinion had been damnable but some against the Apostles Councell at Hierusalem because there had yet been no other generall Councell at least why should not I be excused by the same reason though I beleeve not a Councell to be infallible since I never heard that any Councell hath decreed that they are so neither if it hath can we be bound by that decree unlesse first made certaine some other way that it selfe is so If you say we must beleeve it because of Tradition I answer Sometimes you will have the not beleeving any thing not declared by a Councell to have power enough to damne that is when against any of us at other times the Church hath not decreed unlesse a Councell have and their error is pardonable and they good Catholicks Next as I have asked before how shall an ignorant man know it For he in likelihood can speak but with a few from whom he cannot know that all of the Church of Romes part do now and in past ages have beleeved it to be Tradition so certaine as to make it a ground of Faith unlesse he have some revelation that those deceived him not neither indeed can those that should inform him of the opinions of former times be certainely informed themselves For truely if the relation of Pappias could cozen so far all the prime Doctors of the Christian Church into a beleefe of the celebration of a thousand yeeres after the resurrection so as that no one of those two first ages oppose it which appeares plainly enough because those that after rise up against this never quoated any thing for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived at least two hundred and fifty yeares after Christ nay if those first men did not onely beleeve it as probable but Justine Martir saith he holds it and so