be infallible and moreover affirme that if it be it cannot be infallibly knowne to be so how can you thinke that we shall ever yeild without any offer of proofe that there is sufficient instruction to be had for any man in this point besides for you to say that every Man 's not acknowledging this proceeds either from Weaknesse or Passion what is that but uncharitablenesse first and then shortnesse of discourse when the case was on supposition that there was no fault of which his search was guilty and Petitio principii againe To the 32. Section Chap. 20. Whosoever admits of truth upon no better grounds than others doe admit of falshood doth not receive it rightly solidly and as he ought but after a way defective and infirme Againe whosoever searches and is loath to finde and would not see it when he might this Man refuseth truth as badly and weakly as the other doth receive it and as the truth will not benefit the one so the enquiry will not advantage or excuse the other As for such as are bred up in a true Religion and which without particular examination they accept it were rash judgement to say all these received truths upon no better grounds then others did falshood for first according to this account the greatest portion of Christian men on all sides would be in a hard condition amongst whom the simple and illiterate who are not able to read Evagrius either in Greeke or Latine nor yet the Bible either in Hebrew or Greeke or otherwise to make any strict search into antiquity for their making discoveries which faith was the Antient and Apostolique But though they be unable to doe this yet doe they not therefore take up their Religion at randome and by chance or consult passion about it and not reason but contrariwise doe finde their reason satisfied each one according to their severall models or measure of capacity by the present view of the majesty and divine perfections of the Catholique Church and faith therein professed together with the assurances from publique fame and creditable relations By meanes of which the divine providence and veracity shewes them infallibly what wayes they are to take and what doctrines to receive as revealed from above And thus regularly speaking amongst orthodox Believers where Religion may appeare like it selfe every Man of capacity though illiterate may see sufficient to resolve him which satisfaction from any false Religion he could not receive for though to a heedlesse eye and before a diligent exquiry made some grand falshoods may seeme more probable than truths and that as Aristotle teacheth multa falsa sunt probabiliora veris many falshoods are more probable than truths yet not to a diligent Enquirer after the search is made and especially in businesses of great concernment because God and nature have laid these kinde of truths more open to our view and set markes upon them by which they might be knowne and discerned from falshood Wherefore in the law of nature it was more credible even to the illiterate that there was a God then that there was none and now Judaisme is not so probable as Christianity is though sometimes it hath been nor Mahumetisme at any time so perswasible as Christian Religion or Heresy so credible and satisfactory as orthodoxall Christianity or the Greeke schisme as the Greeke unity wherefore though the Parents beliefe and the Religion prevalent in the Countrey have great influence into the minds of Man and are great and powerfull Perswaders yea oftentimes Seducers also and those very dangerous yet neverthelesse in those places where truth is taught they doe not hinder Men from the right apprehension of it and from making true judgements about it but rather like a prosperous gale of winde to Vessels under sayle cause them to move towards the Port desired more swiftly than otherwise they would And thus much may suffice for taking off the slander and scandall which this Enquirer and after him Chillingworth with great acerbity have almost in the very same tearmes labour'd to cast upon right believing Christians therewith to disparage their faith as if forsooth they beleived truths invalidly and upon no better reasons then others beleive falshood Thus have both these conspired against the truth for both indeed are but one Author in effect one the Text and the other the Commentary wherefore the Publisher of this small worke hath shewed us all the well head to which Chillingworth went to draw which Well before was unknowne to the most part of Men and so might have still remained had it not been for this Publishers unseasonable diligence Chap. 20. Answ to Ch. 20. Section 1 Your mistake is very remarkable in this Paragraph and your paines very prodigally mispent in disproving of that which is by his Lordship mentioned onely on supposition of somewhat else affirmed by you and by that meanes demonstrated to be infirme Section 2 His Lordship's present reasoning is that supposing your infallibility true yet he that denies it and withall uses his best reason to seeke if it be true will sure be in as safe a condition as he that believes it and searches not And this he proves because the one believes that supposed falshood on as good grounds as the other doth that supposed truth Which is so fully concluded from those premises and so needs no farther proofe that indeed these premises are able to conclude more viz that in that case that Man believes that supposed falshood on better grounds viz upon impartiall search then the other believes that supposed truth and then 't were unreasonable to thinke that God that rewards mens actions and not their fates their choices and not their starres should condemne the one more ingenuous and guiltlesse and reward the other meaner and more criminall part of the parallel Section 3 All this you in a manner confirme by saying that he that thus admits of truth admits it not solidly rightly and as he ought but after a defective and infirme way Which being borrowed from you out of this Chapter the rest will appeare to belong very nothing to his Lordship's argument and therefore I choose not to insist on any reply to it For of those which doe finde their reason satisfied in your infallibillity of which you speake a while his Lordship speakes not and for the truths that God and nature have laid so open to our view of which you speake againe sure this of infallibillity is none Section 4 As for your displeasure expressed againe without any new occasion against the unseasonable Publisher which if you and some others of your Friends were meere Students and Votaries to pray for and study the peace of Hierusalem and not too active Infusers and Enterprizers in these troubled waters might indeed be acknowledged lesse seasonable it is the very thing you said before and then was sufficiently proved to be unseasonable To the 33 34. Sections Chap. 21. That the Enquirer did not
't is now mended To the Greeke that concludes the former Section should be adjoyned in the same period If I could c. and no new Section be there made and as the sence by that mistake of the Printer lyes broken in the first Impression it is non-sence Section 2 Now this being said It is a little odde that there should be but one piece of non-sence in the Booke and that should have the lucke to be in your favour and by you be confestly admitted as probable But this was but a misfortune Your Answer to the 38 is not so excusable being not one syllable to the matter in hand that sluggishnesse may as probably bring a Papist to grant your infallibility as pride a Protestant to deny it In stead of denying or answering of which you onely reply that pride may possibly blind a man Sure this paragraph you might have admitted also as well as the other two that encompasse it much better then to have said nothing to the purpose Section 3 The 39. I would not discourage you from granting it had beene much for my ease if you had granted the whole treatise otherwise I could shew you that it conteines an argument perfectly concludent against your cause in satisfying one maine objection of yours against us To the 40 Section Chap. 24. We Catholiques doe not disagree in points of faith neither where there is fire to keepe us in awe nor where there is none and therefore this exception against our unity is frivolous It is the clearenesse and perfection of our rule that drawes us all to unity and not any of the foure Elements If we follow this rule we are at peace and we doe well know how to follow it contrarywise follow your rule as well as you can and yet you are at variance wherefore you assigne a rule which though it in it selfe be not uncertaine yet which is as bad you are uncertaine of it Now as in Logicke a maxime or axiome if unknowne or uncertaine is no good principle of argumentation so in matter of beliefe a rule not certainly discernible and understood is no good rule of faith though never so perfect in it selfe and this is just your case The differences amongst those of our Church are not differences in matters of faith or religion as it is evident but on the other side it is manifest and confessed that yours are Our differences are in Philosophy onely or in some Scholastique and undefined point and such in particular is that now some yeares agitated betweene the Dominicans and sundry of their party on the one side and the Jesuits and Sorbon Doctours and many more on the other For these contend not as we doe with the Calvinists namely whether we have free will or no all of them agreeing in that verity of faith but they contend about a question onely Philosophicall which hath some relation to it namely whether with this freedome of will acknowledged by both sides Physicall predeterminations or praemotions can consist which question is no question of faith Now admitting as many thinke that these predeterminations could not stand with the doctrine of free will yet the said doctrine of faith is not hurt thereby for the opposition betweene them and free will is either discovered by the Dominicans or not If not then is it dormant and so though never so ill it cannot doe hurt to faith or worke it any prejudice If it be discovered then it can worke nothing forasmuch as thereupon it will be relinquisht and abandon'd presently because the doctrine of free will is received by an assent of faith and the other but by a philosophicall or opinative the former being the stronger must needs command and expell the latter assoone as they begin to fall at variance Wherefore it would in that case be a good consequence with them viz. Man hath free will therefore there is no predetermination and not contrarywise as it is with the Calvinists there is predetermination therefore no free will Therefore in the holding of predeterminations there is a vast difference betweene a Calvinist and a Dominican even as much as betweene an obedient Catholique and a perverse and obstinate Heretique and that is difference enough And since you would needs know this is the reason why these arguments make you Heretiques and not the Dominicans That the Church ought to have resolved the point in difference betweene those two orders is more then the inquirer can prove for neither of their doctrines doe hinder conformity with the ancients in any one thing wherein conformity was requisite for men are not bound to conforme with the ancients in the reasons of their beliefe but in their belief onely The 42. Section we grant as making nothing against our doctrine And thus Chillingworth is also answered who insists upon this same point and also in the same fashion with this Inquirer so that all things considered both these make but one Author and require but one answer to what they have objected And by this the 41 and 42. Sections be also answered C. 24. Answer to C. 24. Section 1 His Lordship saith that the consent is little thank-worthy because that may be an effect of feare when there is fire for them that disagree To this you answer that you disagree not in matters of faith neither where there is fire to awe nor where there is none Section 2 Sir is not that a strange answer in you that know there is fire to awe disagrees in all matters of faith and consequently no matter of faith where there is no fire to awe By this it appeares that that exception of his Lordships against your unity in matters of faith is farre from frivolous and to get quit of it you are faine to make a distribution of which onely one species belongs to the Genus which being put into forme betraies it selfe presently It must be thus of matters of faith some are required of us sub poenâ ignis some are not Can you stand to it that this shall hold are there any things de fide which a Man may safely disbelieve if not all the rest you say in that Section is nothing to the purpose But then you adde that all the differences are in matters not of faith to which the answer will be very obvious if I troubled you with no other that ours are so too and then you have little matter of triumph over us in that excellence Section 3 But if you please I shall be a little more large with you in this point and first I beseech you to consider that it is you that bring this Argument against us taken from Dissentions amongst us and not we against you though we might with as good reason and therefore that it lies on you to prove it a concluding Argument and to us 't is abundantly sufficient if we be but able to retort it for then 't will be an Argument ad homines though in it selfe it
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
second §. Chap. 3. The Enquirer is here much mistaken for we are not at all offended with Protestants for their alleadging Scriptures but for their doing of it after a way which is fallible and uncertaine in which case we say Scripture can be no foundation of faith Wherefore though they alleadge Scripture and we also yet doth it not follow thence that the Protestants disprove the infallibility by the selfe same media or meanes by which we endeavour to prove the same It is true they attempt to doe so but that they doe it is denied The Scripture when surely sensed or expounded is a different medium from the same Scripture sensed unsurely or expounded falsely Now he that takes an unsure way which no reason or discretion commends unto him and leaves the sure which Reason does perswade him to be such if that man chance to erre it is easie to understand why God should be more offended with him then with others that doe not so but hold a prudent and contrary course The summe is that holy Scripture after such time as it comes to be knowne certainly for Canonicall and shall be expounded according to the interpretation of the Church foundeth an argument strong and invincible but when otherwise one that is probable onely or ad hominem and this latter we say is your case and out of this give a reason why your resolves are temerarious and presumptuous and in fine such wherewith God may be displeased justly forasmuch as no man ought to goe about this worke unadvisedly or expose his salvation without all need to chance and uncertainty as if he meant to build upon the sand C. 3. Ans To the third Chap. Section 1 I answer that through this whole Chapter the same fallacy returnes againe of satisfying his Lordship's argument by a bare affirming but not proving a thing which is as much denied by his Lordship viz. that your alleadging of Scripture for the infallibility of your Church is by an infallible and certaine way but our alleadging of it for every part of our religion is by a fallible and uncertaine For though you in tearmes affirme onely the latter of these that which is against us yet in charity to you I shall suppose you imply the former or if you will say you doe not I shall then answer that the granting of what you say doth not vindicate your Infallibility but onely accuse us not cleare your selves or if that which you adde by way of explication may passe for a proofe of it viz. that Holy Scripture when it shall be expounded according to the interpretation of the Church foundeth an argument strong and invincible but when otherwise onely probable and ad hominem I answer that this being applyed to the matter in hand to you and us must if it signifie any thing have this importance that the places of Scripture which you bring for the Infallibility of your Church are expounded according to the interpretation of the Church but the places which we bring for the severall parts of our religion are not so expounded And then I answer that by the Church you may and I conceive ought to meane the Vniversall Church truly so called without your ordinary clogge or restriction and then all that we require of you is to make your affirmation good and produce the places of Scripture which that Vniversall Church hath so expounded to the asserting the Infallibility of your Church which till you doe produce 't is petitio principii againe and then we shall shew our selves ingenuous and though we might reply something which ad homines might be answer yet shall we part with all other advantages of defending our selves and in plaine ground yeild you the cause and contend no longer with you Section 2 But if you meane by the interpretation of the Church the interpretation of the Church in the notion wherein we enquire whether it be infallible viz. that society of Christians which have been govern'd by the Pope Though then we might deny that you have any such interpretation of Scripture for your infallibility and justifie the deniall for if you please we will undertake to shew that some eminent persons in the Church of Rome perhaps Popes themselves never interpreted any Scripture to the asserting the Infallibility of your Church and that many other differ among themselves what is that Church which they affirme from Scripture to be infallible and that will amount to the same also yet we shall content our selves with this other answer that the interpretation of that Church unlesse Saint Peter himselfe or some other acknowledg'd to be inspired joyne in it is not Infallible and for you to say it is and not to prove it is a petitio principii againe And for any other notion of the Church which shall be said so to interpret when you shall fasten on it we shall undertake to make good either that it doth not interpret the Scripture to the asserting the Infallibility of the Church or else that the Church in that notion is not infallible Section 3 As for the other part of your assertion which you principally insist upon in this Chapter that our case is contrary to yours i. e. that we found not our religion on Scripture expounded according to the interpretation of the Church we utterly disclaime it and for you to affirme it without proofe is petitio principii againe and to put it to a faire issue we make this offer that what ever proposition we affirme without shewing Scripture for it and that expounded according to the interpretation of the ancient Church we will presently forgo on your first instance and if you would pay us the like offer and your party make it good I doubt not but as turbulent a Sea as the state of Christendome is at this time the whole Church might quickly be at peace or at least the dissentient party not be considerable I remember a passage in Saint Hilary depredicating the Bishops of France as very happy men quòd aliam non cognovissent confessionem◠c. that they knew no other confession then that ancient and most simple which through all Churches from the Apostles age had been received And I am a little confident that that which first made and hath ever since fomented the breaches of that pretious body is the multiplying and imposing of new confessions and articles of beleife from the suggestion of private or lesse publique spirits and that hath made the body like Aristotle's insectills which for want of bloud runne out into a multitude of legs every such new article so multiplyed above the number of those which Scripture in the truly Catholique interpretation of it will authorize not onely as true but necessary to be so acknowledged being an effect of some want of bloud I meane charity in the Authors for though to teach any man any certaine truth be an act of charity yet to make an article i. e. to require every man to
beleive whatever we conceive to be truth is a great uncharitablenesse and a cause or occasion of more the adding to the necessary truths ordinarily being a forerunner of the abatement of the inventory of the necessary performances I meane of those which are indispensably required of us under Christ These last few lines I confesse to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I hoped might not be unwelcome to you If they be I am sorry you were troubled with it the seeing that there was nothing more in your Chapter which wanted answer gave me temptation and liberty for it To the third Section Chap. 4. The third Section is all true but concerns us nothing because amongst ours there is care enough taken for shewing which Church it is that is the true and infallible and on the other side much negligence and partiality in the enquirers after it in many of them at least though not in every one C. 4. Answ To the fourth Chap. Section 1 In your fourth Chapter though you are just in acknowledging the perfect truth of his Lordships third paragraph yet must you not be beleived on your bare word that you are not concern'd in it For I conceive it cleare that you are because that argument from Reason for such is that which is mentioned there as in the second paragraph the argument from Scripture and in the fourth the argument from Fathers or tradition which you use to prove the Infallibility of your Church viz. that it is therefore so made by God or that it is reasonable to thinke that God therefore so made it that all men may have some certaine Guide can never be able to conclude any thing unlesse it be made knowne by God as certainly or so offered by God to our knowledge that 't is our fault if we know it not both that there is such an infallible Church and which it is Now that God hath so made knowne these two it being impossible for reason to assure us any otherwise then by shewing us some sure word of prophecy I meane some revelation from God with sufficient evidence that it is revelation and this being not by you pretended to be shewed it availes little that you tell us that among yours there is care enough taken to shew which Church it is that is the true and infallible for if by shewing you meane demonstrating any way that it is so this you know we deny and saying it againe without proofe is petitio principii but if by shewing you meane the pointing us out that for the true and infallible of which you are a member we have little obligation or encouragement to beleive you say true being a witnesse in your owne cause I am sure no evidence that if you speake according to your judgement you are Infallible in that shewing or telling For if we had we must be supposed to have that evidence of your infallibility without because before your shewing and so to stand in little need of it To the fourth Section Chap. 5. The answer is that people illiterate may have evidence sufficient whereby to resolve and satisfie themselves without making any search into Histories Fathers or Scripture and therefore this Enquirers supposition is false and indeed it were a hard case if no man might be able to understand what he was to beleive without looking into all these and yet as hard as it is doth this Enquirer impose it upon all if not in expresse tearmes yet by the consequence of his doctrine As for our selves alone what need can we have for seeking out the true sence of Scripture and a conformity of doctrine with the Ancient more then other Christians have Surely according to this method of his all true religion whether in our Church or any other would be impossible to be learned by the illiterate and very hardly by any other men But what evidence can the illiterate have or rather from whence Out of the present face condition and visible practice of religion in the Church out of the antient monuments yet remaining that give in their depositions out of common fame and unsuspected testimonies out of the manifest perfections and excellencies both of the Church and Religion out of all which as from so many cleare signatures and characterismes of truth ariseth an evidence of credibility that this Church and this Religion are the true and whatsoever is once so creditable cannot possibly be false because for the verity of that the veracity of God doth stand engaged as Ric. Victorinus hath long since declared For it is a cleare case that all such things be true which God makes evidently credible and worthy of acceptance by the publique acts of his owne providence for otherwise that providence should publiquely entangle and deceive us by obliging us or at least publiquely and potently inducing and perswading us to believe that which were false and so by following that way which God hath signed out for us we should goe astray which thing can neither be done nor yet permitted to be done without imposture as all the antient Schoolemen doe observe By this meanes then are prudent publique motives able to make a certainty though not by their owne vertue yet at least by the vertue of the Supreame veracity which goes annexed with them Moreover this measure of evidence perceptible by the illiterate and weake though it be not so ample as others have or stand in need to have yet is it sufficient to sway their understanding and to call in the divine assistance for the supplying of whatsoever by reason of ignorance or incapacity is wanting in them Cum simplicibus est sermocinatio mea saith the Wiseman Therefore it is false and injurious to say as this Enquirer seemes to doe namely That such men as these doe assent to truth upon no better grounds then others doe to falshood The Enquirer's inference against the Church is this We thinke she hath erred therefore she may The Inference is good but the Antecedent is infirme and ought not to have beene made because he cannot have so great reason to judge she hath erred as on the contrary that she hath not in regard that it is farre more likely he himselfe erred in making that judgement of the Church then that the Church erred in making that judgement of the truth or that she hath contradicted her selfe it being farre more probable that a private man should be deceived then a whole Church Wherefore it is a great act of presumption and temerity in any single man though never so intelligent to judge the whole Church hath erred rather then himselfe The Enquirer saith that he tries the Church by her conformity with the Antients as she her selfe appoints But what then Doubtlesse she is not that way to be câ—nvinced forasmuch as every intelligent man will suppose that no particular man is able to examine that so well at she her selfe hath done before him and therefore may be pleased
of saying that it was necessary but rather the contrary and by saying it is impossible implies he cannot thinke it necessary and therefore when you affirme of his Lordship that by consequence of his Doctrine he imposes this impossible taske upon the illiterate and doe not so much as pretend to mention that consequence this is so clear a prevarication that you cannot take it ill at any friends hands to call upon you to confesse and retract it and of that nature is that other suggestion here that his Lordship seems to say that ignorant men doe assent to truth on no better grounds than others doe to falshood there being no such syllable here affirmed and if afterwards there be we shall there meet with it Section 4 The second part of the Argument is in relation to the learned proving that tradition cannot to them infallibly prove the Infallibility of your Church or be a rule by which to square your beleife in this particular so farre at least as to make it to them necessary to be beleived as your friends doe and must say it is because it is possible they may mistake in it and that mistake will not be damnable in them if they fall into it with a good conscience as possibly they may i. e. if they use their best diligence to find the truth by tradition and are not kept from it either by prejudice or passion though it should fall out they doe not finde it Section 5 This argument thus drawne out at length his Lordship confirmes by a cleare and pertinent instance suppose me in my inquest whether the Church may erre to enquire whether it ever hath erred and in that inquest suppose me to meet with some motives which really perswade me that the Church hath contradicted her selfe which if she hath done she hath certainly erred because both branches of a contradiction cannot be true but one of them must needs be false in this case it followes that I beleive she hath erred Wherein though it is possible that I may erre because the premises which I beleived true may be false yet because it is but an errour in my judgement that did so thinke and that being reconcileable in this case with sincerity will not be damning to me it will follow that it will be pardonable in me though never so learned that Tradition doth not convince me of the truth of that which I did really conceive it shewed me to be false it being as pardonable in the learned to beleive that errour which they conceive Tradition tells them as it was impossible for the unlearned to know what is Tradition Section 6 The whole weight of this part of the Argument lies in this that what ever is necessary to be beleived must be offered to be proved by a meanes wherein the learned at least cannot erre pardonably and therefore the Infallibility of the Church offered to be proved by Tradition that Tradition being a thing wherein the learned may erre pardonably is not proved by that meanes to be necessary to be beleived Or in a Syllogisme thus That wherein the learned may erre pardonably is not a meanes to prove the Infallibility of the Church to be necessary to be beleived but Tradition is a meanes wherein the learned may erre pardonably therefore Tradition is not a meanes to prove the Infallibility of the Church to be necessary to be believed Section 7 This is the summe of what his Lordship saith in the other part of that paragraph and to no part of this Syllogisme or of the materialls there out of which I have formed it doe you returne the least answer or deniall but rather confirme the Minor First by using Arguments to prove that it is a difficulty and knot common to Papists with Protestants to finde out the conformity of their doctrine with the Ancients which difficulty being granted will prove that in that matter the learned may erre pardonably Secondly by asserting that there be other notes of truth besides this of conformity with the Ancients and therefore that enquiry after that is not necessary to any man which seemes a disclaiming of that as of an unfit Argument Thirdly by saying that we know the conformity by the truth much easier then the truth by conformity From whence it will follow that conformity is a very ill Argument and the worse the Argument the more pardonable the errour in it And fourthly by the professed unfitnesse of this Argument at large dilated on by you with this conclusion that the conditions for the understanding of Tradition are so very hard that certainly God never imposed them on us On which grounds you offer us another meanes of proving it which shewes that this was unsufficient in your opinion viz. the conspicuous body of the present Church which if it be not a very fallible meanes also as in many respects I might prove it were particularly by this that the compasse of Christians that are of that Church of yours is not by common computation a third part of the Christian world is certainly very distant from Tradition which that it is not a meanes infallible in this matter is all that his Lordship now contends in that present Argument Section 8 The onely thing that is by you produced against this difficulty of using this meanes and so pardonablenesse of erring is the last period of the Chapter which commends the reading of the Magdeburgians as a readier way to know conformity then examination of places Section 9 To which I answer that if they have voluntarily confessed that there is constant Tradition for the infallibility of the Roman Church then have you fitly cited them if they have not or if upon my present instance you doe not shew that they have either directly or by certaine consequence then have you wronged them in this your affirmation and left your selfe no meanes to prove your conclusion by that medium Section 10 This is all I shall say to that long Chapter and in that I have shewed that through it you much mistooke the Argument proposed in the title of the Chapter the confutation of the fourth paragraph of which there being two parts you spake no word against either of them and therefore if I should allow every word of that Chapter to be true though you would be beholding to me yet would it be no advantage to you against his Lordship's present reasoning to which all you say is very extrinsecall and impertinent But that I may not lay too great an obligation on you by so liberall a grant I wil mention to you some infirm parts in that your discourse Section 11 I have touched on three already and your evidences that your Church and Religion is the true which you mention for the illiterate and are no one of them evidences may be added to the number which I need not prove because you have not attempted to prove but onely assert the contrary And so also your Divinity cited out
although never so remote the cause of his death This is but to let us see your change or variety that you can use non causa pro causa and not deale onely in petitio principii thus was Tenterden Steeple the cause of Goodwin Sands and that is all I shall returne to your State-observation the cause of our present calamities I conceive came not out of the Church but when it was infamous it fled to it for a Sanctuary to give it an honest Name and a protection together and I could tell you that the League in France was once pretty parallel to ours and then 't was the observation of a knowing man that if a true story of the causes of that Warre should be written the businesse would be traced into such or such a brothell house that made as if it came out gravely from the Church a competition or animosity the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or true cause when religion was onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the pretended Besides let me tell you that decisions and anathematizings have sometimes done as much hurt toward occasioning of breaches as licence and acknowledgement of fallibility hath done and if you marke the onely colour of charge at this time against our Church hath beene the imposing too much and truly whatever your opinion is I conceive meeknesse hath the promise of this life and I never knew that pretending to Infallibility is the onely Symptome of that To the 23 24 25 Sections Chap. 15. The argument of these three Sections is how an ignorant illiterate man cannot be able to trace out all traditions which be truly Apostolicall and this is sought to be perswaded and made good by sundry intricate discourses all which I willingly doe pretermit and onely signifie that they all fall wide of the marke for in a word our answer to them is that private men stand in no need at all of having any particular information of them but that it is sufficient for them if they doe learne what is the common doctrine of the present Church without looking any higher to the Primitive and elder times because this doctrine now taught is credible and perswasive enough for satisfying of any wise mans understanding and the setling of his judgement upon it as for example it is sufficient for any man desirous of knowing which is the River Thames to see it at Gravesend or London without any laborious ascending by it higher and higher and tracing the shoares thereof till he come unto the springs and more then this would not be needfull for the distinguishing of it from Severne or Trent or any other River For if this kinde of assurance might not be sufficient then certainly few or none could ever have come to know which water was the famous River Nilus of which few have ever seene the springs and which as it is very likely doe lye conceal'd in Aethiopia and wholly undiscovered even to this day Against the possibility of searching out traditions Apostolicall and discerning them from others that be spurious and false his principall instance and that in which he most confides is the doctrine of the Chiliasts or Millenaries and the same example is vehemently pressed and repeated often by his Friend Chillingworth The substance of all they say consists in this namely that their doctrine although now generally received to be erroneous was received in the first 200. yeares with one consent as a tradition Apostolicall For making of this charge good they both of them doe jointly alleadge Saint Justin as their witnesse But that we may judge most favourably of this their allegation we needs must tell them they are mistaken grossely for Saint Justin speaking there of three severall sorts of Christians which were in his time affirmes that of those three but one of them held the doctrine of the Chiliasts The first of these three sorts was as he describeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those who as he conceived did in all points hold aright The second classe consisted of such other who although they did not like the former in all things hold aright yet neverthelesse were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of pure and pious judgement or beliefe for so he expressely stileth them the third and last sort were such as denied the resurrection and were therefore censured by him to be Christians rather in name then in reality and justly to be compared with the Sadduces amongst the Jewes Those of the first sort he telleth did hold the doctrine of the thousand yeares The second sort as he expressely witnesseth although they were orthodox and good yet did not hold that doctrine Those of the third sort as he saith were Christians but feignedly and in name alone and resembling the Sadduces yet not for their denying the errour of the thousand yeares for what relation could that have unto the Sadduces But contrariwise for their denying the resurrection as the Sadduces did and all this appeares clearly within the compasse of a few lines in the Greeke text of Saint Justine Besides if all at that time had beene perswaded of the truth of the Millenaries fancy what needed Saint Ireneus have laboured so much as he did and spent so many Chapters in the proving of it This being so it appeares as plainly that the Enquirer and also his Partner Master Chillingworth were both of them deceived in seeking to father upon Saint Justin that all Orthodoxall Believers of his time received the doctrine of the Chiliasts and that such as did not were held as Sadduces or Heretiques for in the Text of Justin there is no such matter but rather the quite contrary to it as may appeare fully by the Text it selfe and partly by the words before recited out of him for without all doubt Saint Justines many of pious and pure judgement or beliefe and were no Chiliasts must needs be Orthodox and could not be Heretiques nor as the Sadduces amongst the Jewes unlesse we will say that with one breath he called them by both contrary names Againe if as these men say all the whole Church were Chiliasts during the first second or third hundred yeares how could or durst Dionysius of Alexandria have opposed them either without forcing his owne Conscience or incurring the blame of Heresy Now it is certaine he was not counted an Heretique and againe very unlikely he would straine his Conscience by opposing any doctrine received as orthodoxall by the whole Church Againe it is probable Saint Dionyse the Areopagite opposed that doctrine therefore it cannot be certaine that during the first 200. yeares it was not opposed that Saint Dionyse did it appears by the workes now extant bearing his name and that these works be his is very probable first because they are received for such by the major part both of the Westerne and the Easterne Church secondly because they were cited for his a thousand yeares agoe and numbred amongst the rest of the Fathers antient
Arrians after they were condemned by a Councell either differs much from your Church that will condemne any man for an Hereticke that shall professe not to condemne all Protestants or else must suppose and admit the plea for Salvian that he was so earnest against ill men that for aggravating of their crime he lessens that of Heretickes And then if it may be accepted in one Fathers behalfe that he could speake hyperbolically or passionately why may it not be admitted in another that one of those or some other collaterall consideration might have influence on any speech that should be cited from them and then the authority of fathers will cease to be infallible Section 22 For this by the way you may please to observe of his Lordship's reasonings about tradition and authority of fathers which before I gave warning of that they are not designed or fitted to the taking away all authority from them to make them vile or meane to any but onely to reduce them in ordinem to prove them not infallible the Topicke à testimonio humano is but a Topicke still and though sometimes being heightened with circumstances of which it is capable it is a very convincing Topicke yet is not for all this a demonstration and so there is a difficulty which may exercise you in stead of scoffing of his Lordship in the close of the Chapter To the 26 Section Chap. 16. The Enquirer seemes to be troubled not a little because we will not say with him that men may be saved in a false religion or because we doe not thinke our religion false or any other religion true besides our owne and in the same veine Chillingworth his Commentatour runnes very fluently and upon this ill sounding string is harping continually Yet for all this harping it will not be easily understood what offence against Charity it can be for us to judge either that Christianity alone is the saving religion or that our religion is the onely true Christianity For say we should be deceived in making this judgement yet this same at the most can be but a want in our selves of right understanding and not any breach of charity towards others or any matter of exclamation as some frivolous men of late have made it Wherefore if we will state the question rightly we are not to enquire whether we want charity in holding that none but Catholickes and true Christians can be saved or in our holding that we onely are of that sort or againe whether our adversaries for their accusing us want not wit and charity together or at least one of them but the question betweene us ought to be whether there be more saving religions then one or whether ours be not that one and this is the old controversy in Bellarmine and others and may be disputed without any anger or without disguising or multiplying of controversies on set purpose done by these Novellists as it seemes for making more businesse then needed or causing more distast and alienation then was before The Enquirer is much displeased with us for damning as he cals it all that are not of the Church of Rome But for pacifying of his angry spirit I demand of any for him what sinne he thinkes it in us to judge that all who die out of the Church of God die in an evill state or what other to thinke that our Catholique Church which he diminitively cals the Church of Rome is the only Church of God Let him satisfie me in this and I will easily satisfie him in the other In the meane time we are not nice to declare That there is but one saving Religion That there is but one true Christianity and that one is the saving religion That there is but one Catholicke Church and that this one Church is by the institution of Christ and according to the consent of antiquity to be governed by the See Apostolique and by the Successour of Saint Peter as chiefe Pastour and President of the rest Now what hurt is there in all this or what want of Christian charity It is not uncharitable to say that some offenders shall be damned and if any then why not those who are truly and really Sestaries and men obstinate for it is like that they deserve it as well as any There wanted not one of this Enquirers confraternity who fancied sometimes to himselfe that all the damnation that was to fall upon the wicked was an annihilation of them and extinction and not a perpetuity of torments which conceit is so charitable that it exceeds the charity even of God himselfe and controules his revelations made to the contrary in the Holy Scripture and condemnes them as guilty of too much rigour and severity and therefore no marvaile though we poore mortals cannot escape their censure But now lest any man should thinke our doctrine to be harsh and rigorous he may please to be inform'd that we doe not hold every man for a Pagan and an Infidell who embraces Paganisme but only so many of them as be guilty of their errour through affected or culpable ignorance which defect though it be a formall ignorance of the truth yet it is a virtuall knowledge of their errour and an interpretative rejection of the truth and also a resistance to God and his divine veracity manifested in his revelations and therefore all these whether Pagans os Heretiques be hainous offenders and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say judged and condemned by their owne consciences of which doctrine it seemes both this Enquirer and after him his second Master Chillingworth were ignorant by their insinuating that no man is an Heretique or selfe-condemned but onely such as adhere to a doctrine which he formally knowes to be erroneous that is to say onely such as doe that which is impossible to be done which conclusion is a covert affirmation that there be no Heretiques at all nor can be any and so all is safe whether sound or no. In like manner we doe not hold to be an Heretique or to be out of the Catholique Church every one who embraces an heresy but such a number of them onely as doe it with an obstinate mind and without preparation to be reformed or to hearken unto reason when it is told them By which doctrine it appeares that we are not so strict as we may seeme nor yet so large as some would have us For on the one side we doe not maintaine that Heretiques can be saved or that heresy is not a deadly or damnable sinne as some Socinians and other Libertines would have us thinke And on the other side we dilate the spaces of the Church Catholique farther then every body conceives we doe and by that meanes comprehend within it many that in the eye of the world seeme aliens unto it so that our charity is not irregular in judging Heretiques to be in good state but it is rather in concluding that very many are not Heretiques really and
interiourly though outwardly they seeme to be And thus you see we doe not cry all men downe to hell not yet any more then we are compelled to doe by the doctrine delivered to us about that point in Holy Scripture After this damning and firing men in the other world of which the Enquirer hath wrongfully accus'd us he proceedeth to blame us for sending Heretiques to the fire in this and therefore saith that he beleives that throughout antiquity we shall not finde the putting to death of any for religion but onely of such as began to kill first This provocation to antiquity howsoever the matter be can be of no force unlesse antiquity did condemne that practice as unlawfull because antiquity did not all it might doe but left divers things for posterity to adde as it should see expedient Besides forasmuch as concernes punishment of impious men and innovatours both by death and other wayes if the Authour had lookt better into antiquity he could not but have beleived otherwise as our Authours doe shew at large for it is cleare that amongst the Jewes in was the practice to punish impious people very severely and all such as with new doctrines sought to infect others punishing according to the prescript of Moyses law some with death other some by other temporall punishments The Canon law also and the Imperiall decree the same to all which the practice of the Church accords and lastly reason her selfe and the common rules of equity and justice doe permit yea and prescribe the same and these suffrages are so powerfull and prevailing as they suffice not onely for the justification of the Churches present practice but also for the condemnation of high presumption and arrogance of all who should be so hardy as to impugne or question it Neverthelesse this same practice of infliction of temporall punishments upon offenders against religion is not generall without any limitation or restraint as some may imagine it to be as if forsooth none of a different religion from ours could be exempted from them but contrariwise it admits exception in many cases as we are about to declare presently Know therefore that wheresoever any Kingdome or Common-wealth is setled in a just and a peaceable possession of Catholique religion without any notable commixture of contrary professions as for example in Italy or Spaine at this present In this case it is no cruelty or rigour to inflict temporall punishments upon all such as shall adventure to disturbe that setled peace by introducing thither any new doctrines upon pretence of whatsoever reformation and that this may be done stands with so much reason as cannot be probably contradicted Neither is this course of severity any defence unnecessary forasmuch as vitious and over-weening spirits are most efficaciously repressed and withheld from evill by feare of temporall punishments in this life because their chiefe aime is at temporall contentments in the same being moved more with the present then with those other that are spirituall and to come conscience and religion having little influence into what they doe In fine they are governed more with sence then reason with stripes then with Philosophy insomuch that neither the schooles of Philosophers nor the Temples of God can worke halfe so much with these wormes of the earth as temporall tribunals can Now though the enemy be never so despicable is he therefore to be neglected because the meanest Seducer may doe mischiefe as we finde by the effects of the Tubmen and againe because the grossest errours if they tend to liberty or be but new may be perswaded to the multitude as by the successes of Mahomet it is manifest and the rather in this case of ours because we experience daily that our people having been once possest that the Religion of the See Apostolique and of their own forefathers was superstition they are easily perswaded that the farther they depart from that Religion the more pure and reformed they shall be and so will be forward to run blindly on till they passe all the bounds of Christianity and reforme all to nothing for with such bewitched minds as these every new nonsense will be more acceptable and be received sooner then any old sense and this is the effects of those raylings against Rome which they have heard continually out of the Pulpits now for so many yeers together without any intermission But although this course of severity be necessary for the preventing of disturbances by innovation yet neverthelesse it is not to be extended unto all that any where amongst us doe teach or professe erroneous doctrines or Religions different from our own but only against corruptors or invaders that is to say such as break in by fraud or violence and disturbe the quiet of the Church For after such time at the invasion is past and the invaders gone and that they are succeeded by another generation which is not guilty of making any irruption but with whatsoever errour they are tainted it is contracted by the vice of education from their Parents and other such instructors and withall doe behave themselves peaceably I say that against such as these the Church doth not proceed nor execute the severity of the Lawes in force against Heretiques of this sort be at this day the descendents of first Protestants in this Kingdome whose ancestors that were the invaders lived about King Edward and Queen Mary Against these descendents the Church doth not presse the Canon Law though against the former sort it did and had just cause given so to doe Conformable to this difference between Protestant and Protestant doe the Catholiques in France and Polonia suffer the Protestants to live with them without molestation and to enjoy the liberties and Priviledges of the Kingdome as formerly they had done in Austria Stiria and Carinthia till such time at they became seditious and conspired against those who gave them freedome But now let it be noted and borne in memory that notwithstanding this gentle proceedings of Catholiques towards the Protestants after so many losses and injuries fuffer'd from them the same Protestants being themselves but juniors and living by sufferance fall hotly upon persecution of Catholiques wheresoever they grow to be the stronger side and that also in most Provinces after a very violent mercilesse and desperate manner slay imprison robbe banish defame in fine suffer Catholiques in no place where they are predominant and this against all right and common equity Which manner of proceeding I must tell the Inquirer is much worse and more unreasonable then Turkish for the Turkes though aliens Barbarians and Conquerours are sensible of the right the Christians of their conquer'd Provinces have for the free exercise of their Religion and therefore do not goe about to restraine them from it but let them continue quietly in that right of theirs and so they doe even to this day to the great shame of Protestants and Puritans here in these Kingdomes may it be spoken without
religion it destructive of all others and that amongst us it is a maine principle or maxime that all other are to be invaded and destroyed by us and this it affirmed confidently though against all probability and experience It cannot indeed be denyed but truth is destructive of falshood by the owne power as light is of darknesse and one contrary of another but for externall coaction or violence we leave that to the Accusers and doe not owne it By this it is not hard to make a judgement who have been the encroachers and who have propogated and maintained themselves by violence you or we And who are the destructive party and live by the spoiles and oppression of others let not those who possesse other mens goods cry out of wrongs or make any brags of just dealing for neither of these can come well out of their mouthes This Enquirer confesseth both sides are in fault but we in more and for this assertion of his brings in some light sophistry because forsooth Protestants hold that they may erre but we maintaine we cannot and so will be sure never to mend That Protestants may erre is granted him and needs no other probation then experience whereby we finde thy have filled all this Kingdome with dissentions and these dissentions with civill warres so that by this that you have erred we know you may But so frequent possibility of erring doth not extenuate but aggravate your crime For if you may erre so foulely how dare you undertake to tutour others how prescribe Lawes with what face Persecute If your rule be so weak as it cannot containe you all in one body but lets you disperse into multitude of Sects and fall in pieces as now you doe why doe you not forsake it and seeke a better for it or else have none at all if you can finde out a surer why doe you not learne wit by experience but wallow on still in the same mire If this Enquirer speake so ill for his Clients we will not entertaine him for our Advocate The Protestants side sets downe for a rule of religion every ones private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture and so doth Master Chillingworth the disciple of Volkelius We doe all that yet we doe not please them nay more we must be punished by them for the result what is this but to bid us doe a thing and then punish us for doing it Is not this extreame perversity certainly if the rule they give be a sufficient warrant for their receding from the faith of their Ancestours and for their breaking off from the Church and standing in defiance of her then doubtlesse much more may it warrant us to continue on and to keep off from any new doctrines either of the Protestants or any other Innovatours whatsoever and sure this is great reason and cannot be gainsayed Besides if we were to yeild to whom were it to be done There is a world of distracted Sectaries now in this Kingdome all sprung from the same roll or from the rule of faith which it common to you all of which one sort imagines there is no Papacy and these were the first ring-leaders of all the rout another that there is no Episcopacy a third that there is no Clergy but that Lay-Elders is all in all and must rule the roast a fourth that there is no Church nor Church-government at all but that the Church is like a Schoole of Philosophers where every man may believe and doe what he pleases without being accountable to another or any obligation of conformity and peradventure the Inquirer was one of this number together with his confederate M. Chillingworth a fifth sort that there is no Trinity a sixth that there is no Sacrament or at least none necessary or effectuall Is it not fit thinke you that these divided Christians should come and write Lawes to others or punish any man for non-conformity nothing more improbable It is a Comedy to see D. Featly a Protestant and Page a Puritan make Catâ—logues of Heretiques and when they have done can finde no way whereby to exempt themselves nor give a reason why they themselves should not be of the number as much Sectaries as any other of the Catalogue The Inquirer charges us that because we pretend to be infallible we have lesse reason to prescribe to others but on the contrary me thinkes we should have more for as he who is really infallible is fittest to guide and governe others so he that thinkes himselfe to be is at least in his own judgement more fit than he that does not He addes that this pretence of infallibility makes us sure never to mend or as his Schollar Chillingworth speaketh makes us incorrigible True if it were a meere pretended one but that is not yet proved either by him or any although he say here in this 28. Section he undertakes to give reasons why the Church of Rome is fallible But if on the other side it be a reality and that the Inquirers reasons are but pretended then surely will not this infallibility keep us from mending but contrariwise from erring or having any thing to mend or which is all one from any errours to correct And thus we see that our Religion is maintained by the selfe same arts that bred it that is to say not by force or violence but by reason and revelation and spirituall industries contrary to the surmises of this Inquirer C. 16. Answ to Chap 16. Your doctrine of damning all that are out of the Church of Rome you have enlarged much above the occasion that invited you to it for all that his Lordship had said on that theme was onely this that your certaine and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome averseth him from it Which if it be true you cannot blame him for sure they that heare the punishment of judging Mat. 7. being judged of the Lord will have little love to that piece of sensuality or consequently to the religion that requires them to runne upon this danger And that the charge is true of you you doe at first acknowledge by labouring to prove that there is no uncharitablenesse in it Secondly that it is necessary for you to maintaine or that otherwise you must fall into some great absurdity particularly this that there is any Church but that which is governed by the See Apostolique which is a rare petitio principii againe and saves us the paines of saying one word more in defence of the truth and justice of those true words of his Lordship For indeed that enclosure of the Church Christianity and Salvation to those that are under the Roman submission is the uncharitablenesse that you are charged of The envy of which it seemes after all your confidence you are willing to remove from you and therefore adde an handsome lenitive to keepe any from thinking that your doctrine is rigorous or harsh And truly if you might be taken at your
please to give over this course of denying conclusions and not considering premises I will soone obey your advise and resolve to leave off contending Ibid. B. Our Authours have proved all that we in defending doe affirme and if the Enquirer had impugned their proofes we then would have tryed to defend wherefore that which we affirme and declare doth not rest upon a bare affirmation although I prove them not in this place as being here a meere Defendant and not an Arguer Answ This annotation being upon the same occasion and in substance the same with the former is already answered Onely I shall adde that if you affirme ought which your Authours in other Bookes bring proofe for this will not excuse you from a necessity of answering his Lordships arguments against that conclusion of your Authors or if it doe you must not passe for a Defendant His part it is to ward the Adversaries blowes and if he make a thrust himselfe he then turnes Offendent or Arguer and when he doth so he must take care his weapon have some edge I meane his affirmations some proofes annext or else they will wound no body As for the Enquirer i. e. his Lordship it was not his present taske to descend to an enumeration and impugning of all your Authours arguments though yet those which he could thinke of as your chiefe he hath insisted on and were he alive he would from your dealing here have little encouragement to seek out for others his intention was to frame arguments against your conclusion and if you had denied or answered them you needed not to have troubled your self to affirme any thing or if out of designe or ex abundanti you will you must be content to be call'd upon to prove it For call your selfe what you please you must be an Arguer when you so affirme Ibid. C. Yes sure by consequence it is Answ I am forced to aske your pardon if I know not certainly to what part of my discourse this Annotation belongs whether to the end of one period or the beginning of the other Yet it falls out luckily that which soever it is it is againe the denying the conclusion which you are very subject to for the end of the former period is the mention of a conclusion deduced from grounds immediately before specified And the beginning of the second period is a negation of mine with proofe immediately following it and before I come to the proofe For though c. you presently interpose your Yes sure by consequence it is but will not consider me so much as after my example to give the least proofe for what you say or take notice of that proof of mine C. 7. Answ to C. 7. A. I make no distinction here but suppose it made and also manifest Answ I only said you had given a distinction not made it and that supposed it made also and I then conteined my selfe from taking any exceptions to it onely I told you the applying of it to that place would have afforded some game if I had been so sportingly disposed And to that I pray consider how pertinent your Annotation hath proved I will not be provoked to adde more Ibid. B. Your part was to have confuted what I say and not so often and to no purpose repeat this Petitio Principii Answ If it be a sufficient confutation of any Sophister to finde out and tell him of his sophisme which ipso facto is worth nothing when 't is discovered as the title of Aristotles Booke of Elenchs supposes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being defined by Varinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a discovery of that which was hid and 't is manifest by comparing 1 Cor. 14.24 with v. 25. Eph. 5.13 then have I obeyed you in confuting what you say though I take not your advice for the way of it And indeed if it should be in any Duellers power to prescribe to his Adversary when he is in his danger that he shall not wound him this way but some other or if it were regular for you to forbid me to tell you of a Petitio principii when you are clearly guilty of it and when to evidence that against you is not onely the shortest but most logicall most expedite and most clear way of redargution your Adversary might be weary of playing out the prize though he were sure to conquer in it I shewed you that an Answerer might so carry the matter as to be guilty of Petitio principii and 't was but passion in you to check or tell me 't was to no purpose that I said you were so C. 8. Answ to C. 8. A. We have done it and doe it continually when occasion requires Answ I beseech you read over those lines of mine to which your Annotation is affixt and speak your conscience whether you think 't was fitly noted If you can be so partiall to your own creature I will not contend with you but onely tell you that as I conceive it impertinent so I see apparently that 't is contrary to that other speech of yours which within three lines I there recited from you For if you doe it continually i. e. prove the Roman Church to be the true by its agreement with Scripture c. as here your Annotation saith you doe how could you say his Lordship was mistaken in supposing you did so I wish you had first read out to the end of the period and then I suppose you would have fitted your Annotation to it the better Ibid. B. I doe not disclaime Scripture though I doe not hold it to be the first or formost proof either of the Church or of Christian Religion and would know how you your selfe would convert an Infidell or Atheist by Scripture beginning with that proof Answ You must againe remember what my last Answer mentions that in that place when his Lordship had supposed you to prove the Roman Church to be the true Church by its agreement with Scriptures and antiquity which is in effect by holding the truth you plainly tell him he is mistaken in you On this ground I must conclude and thinke it proved by that confession that you doe disclaime Scripture as farre as I said you did i. e. not to all purposes but to that of which the discourse was viz to prove your Church to be the true Church And 't is not enough to say that you doe not hold it to be the first or formost proofe c. For if it be used by you as any proofe at all that will also be a very probable meanes besides that it makes it evident that his Lordship was not mistaken in supposing it so to bring you into the circle which you were so carefull to avoid You see I am cleare from your Animadversion and so have no occasion to enter into that new controversie whether the Scripture be the formost proof either of the Church or of the Christian Religion though sure it may be
one without being the other it may be the formost proofe of evidencing which is the true Church to them that are supposed Believers and none else will be fit for that enquiry yet not be the first meanes to prove Christian Religion to Unbelievers And yet I shall not be over-coy nor make much scruple to tell you my opinion of this also that I would not begin with an Infidel with that proofe to either purpose as supposing he did believe it or that it would of its owne accord attract his beliefe infallibly but for Christianity it selfe I should first labour to win somewhat upon his affections by converse and by shewing him the excellency of the Christian precepts and the power of them in my life bring him to thinke my discourse worth heeding then when I had gotten that advantage I would relate the rem gestam of Christianity where all the acts and miracles and passages of Christs life would come in then if he doubted of the truth of it tell him the authority by which it comes downe to us in a continued undistributed undenied tradition from those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oculate Witnesses of Christ and the whole matter and to as good an advantage as I could compound the severall motives of Faith together which if you please you may view at leisure in Grotius de verit Chr. Rel. and when by these meanes I had converted him I should then by Scripture and antiquity which would now be of some authority with him and not by miracles attempt to manifest to him which were the true Church To which end it may be worth your remembring that your Apostle of the Indies Xaverius thought fit for their use to compile a double Gospel one of Christ another of S. Peter by the authority of one of them to teach them Christianity of the other the supremacy and infallibility of S. Peters chaire But I shall not give my self liberty to enlarge on this Ib. C. I deliver the method and how it may be I also affirme or declare that it is I was not in this place to prove but to defend against the Enquirers arguments and no other and therefore those two quarrels needed not Answ The designe of most of your Notes is to save your selfe from the necessity of proving any thing that you affirme whereas it might be but an act of a little supererogating charity if you would sometimes prove your assertions even when by strict law you were not bound to it But Sir I will not require your almes but onely your justice and though that will not oblige you to prove when you onely defend i. e. when you onely deny the premises of his Lordships arguments c. or when you are strictly an Answerer yet when instead of that you confront any affirmation of yours to his Lordships conclusion as here you doe and in all places when we charge petitio principii upon you I must then be pardoned to put you in mind of your duty which is that of Arguers then and not of Respondents either to prove what you so say or not to think you have convinced any man They that cannot answer one argument produced against them may yet think fit to make use of some argument for them hoping that may prove as convincing on their sides as that against them and so by divertisement put off the heat of the impression and this you have been proved to be often guilty of and 't will satisfie no man to say that you neither are nor because Defendant can be guilty of so doing Ibid. D. Sure he hath not for Turnbull hath vindicated himselfe Answ If every reply were a Vindication then you may have affirmed truth and then these few marginall notes of yours such as they are would be your Vindication also and then I suppose you will give your free consent that they be printed But the task would be too long to disprove what you have now said for it would require the examination of all those writings betwixt the two Combatants and when that were done you would think perhaps that Turnbull were vindicated and I that he were not I shall onely tell you that you had beene so concluded in a circle infallibly if you had asserted that method which his Lordship there disproves which is enough to vindicate his Lordship against those that doe assert that method as sure some Romanists doe and against them he there argues and not against you or any in that place which renounce that method Ibid. E. If our Church be the true Church it must be proved firstly as Christianity is first proved that is to say by motives of credibility and supernaturall ostensions or acts not of naturall and ordinary but supernaturall and extraordinary providence and he that will not prove Christianity by this way will not prove it at all After this done Scriptures and Fathers doe come but not before and this way is not new but the way of the Antients Answ I have here no necessity of re-examining of the means of proving Christianity to an Infidell it will suffice to remember that those meanes which are necessary to that may be unnecessary to prove which is the true Church because now to him that is converted as he that will judge betwixt true and hereticall is supposed to be other meanes may suffiently supply the place such are Scripture and Antiquity which to an Heathen are of no authority but to a Christian or suppositâ fide are and being so as I conceive you will not think fit to deny may well be made the umpire betwixt us who are I hope allowed to be Christians still by the consent of parties or if we are not our pretensions to miracles wil hardly gain any credit with them that have that prejudice against us Mean while I must remember you that motives of credibility as you call them are but weake premises to induce a conclusion of such weight as the choice of religion is I will tell you what I should have said instead of it Motives of excessive probability of the same or greater force then those on which I ground and build the most considerable actions of my life and which as formerly I told you if I will dis-believe I have as good reason to mistrust the wholesomenesse of every dish of meat I taste on which 't is physically possible may poison me but yet none but Hypocondriackes think it will or phansie it so strongly as to abstâ—ine the security of any title of estate I purchase or possesse the truth of any matter of fact in the most acknowledged history or tradition among men that I daily talk of All which though they produce not nor are apta nata to doe so a science or infallible certainty cui non potest subesse falsum yet doe they or are very sufficient to doe so a Faith or fiduciall assent cui non subest dubium of which I doubt no more
from you or if it should prove lesse splendid yet more tolerable to have beene ravisht from you then prostituted To the second Sect. I answer that you had said that before in annot to the concl A. And the answer there belongs to this Sect. and if you had made good what you say was your drift you should be pronounced conquerour To the third Sect. You have taken a good course to defend infallibility by setting up for it your selfe and affirming that no reply can be made to you in that matter because it depends onely upon your judgement which none can know but whom you tell it But good Sir your Authors do tell us that there is nothing infallible but the Church and when they have done so we may know your outward acts for such are your writings though your inward we pretend not to pry into To Sect. 4. I answer that one argument of his Lordships taken from your affirmed fallibility of Reason Scripture and Antiquity is most prodigiously by you call'd three pillars And how Sampson-like you have broken them downe the Reader must judge if you are so confident I have here exprest my selfe your servant by helping you to a publique tryall To Sect. 5. I acknowledge that from your owne confession I make those three arguments that neither Reason Scripture nor Antiquity can infallibly prove your Church to be infallible And To the Sect. 6. I say that the want of infallibility in those three mentioned Sect. 6. and by you confest is sufficient to prove his Lordships conclusion that they cannot infallibly prove your infallibility and this is the same that was meant by his Lordship though more explicated by me and brought home against you by way of retortion and Argument ad hominem upon your own confession And so your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was sung much too early and you must to your taske again if you will make an end of it To Sect. 7. I answer that if you had shewed the revelation on which reason inferres your infallibility your section had stood good but the totall want of that is your maine impediment To Sect. 8. Be you also pleased to produce your consent of Antiquity certainly expounding Scripture to inferre your infallibility and that shall be yielded you also but I conceive those writers of yours have not done it and whensoever you please I shall be ready to examine their testimonies with you To Sect. 9. I answer That we have allowed a sence wherein the Church universall may be stiled infallible and that to save my selfe the paines of examining your testimonies though some without examining I know to be ill cited I shall grant it in that sence to be so But then to your second proposition be it either I deny that they teach not or I affirme that it holds it matter 's little that the Roman Church is the true Church I answ That if there be emphasis in the particle the in the praedicate so that it signifie the Catholick Church in the former proposition 't is then absolutely false that the Fathers say any such thing And you are prudent to cite none to that ridiculous purpose But if you meane that the Roman Church is a true Church so you doe not meane that all it saith is true as we grant that so we challenge you to prove that ever the ancient Church thought any such particular Church of one denomination to be infallible When you please to produce your testimonies you shall receive answer to them To Sect. 10. Concerning the motives of Faith You might have spared that paines it being not at all concluded by you here or before that that infallibility is built on the same grounds with Christanity To Sect. 11. If you had never such solid reasons to perswade you that your Church had the truth as I should not need to deny were it not for your denying the cup to the Laity against Scripture and your keeping the Scripture in an unknowne tongue and some other such defects in faciendis but rather charge you that you have more then the truth viz. many errours mixt with the truth this would prove but a very weake probation that your Church is the true Church in the exclusive notion i. e. that no other is the Church but that for having the truth doth not signifie a Monopoly or inclosure of it or that no body else can have it And if by the true Church you meane no more but a true part you know we doe not question it nor affirme that your errors though many have turn'd you in non Ecclesiam into a no Church As for your Concordance with the Fathers which you say you have I answere that in those things wherein you and we consent we shall not be unwilling to grant it to you but yet must remember you that you would not allow that to be a proofe of your being infallible but in those other which we call errors in you we challenge you to produce an universall Concordance You goe on that you proue your Church by no other way then Christianity is perswaded unto Infidels I hope your meaning is that you prove your Church to be a true Church and that shall be granted you without your proofe but that it is the only true one or the infallible one I hope you have not miracles for that if you have you have trifled away a great deale of time in not telling us of them nor revelation from Heaven nor universall tradition to assure you what you affirme so confidently that the Infallibility of your Church is the whole frame of Christianity And therefore what you learnedly adde about the verba signorum or signa realia signes and ostensions c. by which you go about to prove Christianity I must professe to edifie me but little in point of the infallibility of your Church because that is so distant a thing from it To Sect. 12. Your affirmation that the true Catholique Religion is the true Christianity if that be the onely thing you aime at shall be willingly granted you all the question will be whether all your doctrines that of denying the cup to the Laity c. be that Catholique Religion And sure to him that questions that all the characterismes c. all your Propheticall predidictions will give but little satisfaction and no more will the excellency of Faith perfection of heroick actions of professors nor the conveyance from age to age by the Prime Ecclesiasticall succession of Pastors in the Sea of Rome because that of the sub unicâ specie c. which we quarrell at in you might as well be pretended to have testimonies out of the present Articles of our Church as out of these If there be any of these evidences or moreover of Reason Scripture Antiquity on your side for such controverted particulars I beseech you let them be produced or else you may be Christians but yet corrupt in these particulars your being