the Church in their positive tearmes Summus Pontifex cum totam Ecclesiam docet in his quae ad Fidem pertinent nullo casu errare potest We conceive he hath suffciently expressed the sence of the word Infallibility so that Infallibilis est nullo casu errare potest are to us the same thing It cannot therefore be the Word alone but the whole importance and sence of that word Infallibility which Mr. Cressy so earnestly desires all his Catholicks ever hereafter to forsake because the former Church did never acknowledge it and the present Church will never be able to maintaine it This is the great successe which the Reason Parts and Learning of the late Defendors of our Church have had in this maine Architectonicall Controversie And yet though the Church never maintained it though the Protestants have had such advantage against it though Mr. Cressy confessing both hath wished all Catholicks to forsake it yet will he not wholly forsake it himself but undertakes most irrationally to answer for it If the Church never asserted it if the Catholicks be not at all concerned in it to what end will Mr. Cressy the great mitigator of the rigor and defendor of the latitude of the Churches Decisions maintaine it If Mr. Chillingworth have had such good successe against it why will his old Friend Mr. Cressy endeavour to answer his arguments especially considering when he hath answered them all he can onely from thence conclude that Mr. Chillingworth was a very had Disputant who could bring no argument able to confute that which in it selfe is not to be maintained So unreasonable it is and inconsistent with his Concessions that he should give an answer at all but the manner of his answer which he gives is farr more irrationall For deserting the Infallibility he answers onely the authority of the Church and so makes this authority answer for that Infallibility from whence these three manifest absurdities must necessarily follow First When he hath answered all M. Chillingworth's arguments in the same manner as he pretends to answer them he must still acknowledge them unanswerable as they were intended by him that made them And no argument need to be thought good for any thing else if he which made it knew what he said as Mr. Chillingworth certainely did Secondly He onely pretends to answer those arguments as against the authority of the Church simply considered without relation to such an Infallibility which were never made against an authority so quallified And therefore whether the argument of his deare friend were to any purpose or no his answer manifestly must be to none Thirdly If hee intend to refute all opposition made to their Infallibility by an assertion of their bare authority then must he assert that authority to be as great and convincing which is fallible as that which is infallible that Guide to be as good which may lead me out of my way as that which cannot That Iudge to be as fit to determine any doubt who is capable of a mistake as he which is not And then I make no question but some of his own Church amongst the rest of their dislikes will put him in mind of that handsome sentence of Cardinall Belarmine Iniquissimum esset cogere Christianos ut non appellent ab eo Judicio quod erroneum esse potuit I once thought to have replied to those answers which he hath given to Mr. Chillingworth's arguments but his antecedent Concession hath made them so inconsiderable to me that upon a second thought I feare I should be as guilty in replying after my Objections as he hath been in answering after his Confessions Wherefore I shall conclude with an asseveration of min own which shall be therefore short because mine That the Reply of this most excellent Person Sola operarum summa praesertim in Graecis incuria excepta is the most accurate Refutation of all which can be said in this Controversie that ever yet appeared and if what hath already been delivered have had such successe upon so eminent an adversary then may we very rationally expect at least the same effect upon all who shall be so happy as to read these Discourses Which is the earnest desire of I. P. 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 Ins Will if he had assigncd 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 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 whilft 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 he 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 assoon 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
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 Trenaeus 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 confesse it then pride hinders not our assent but our declaration of it which if it do in any one he is without question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by himself and it must be a very partiall Advocate that would strive to acquit him One much prevailing argument which they make is this That whosoever leaves them fall into dissention between themselves whereas they in the mean while are allwaies at Unity I answer First In this whereof the Question is now they all assent Secondly When there is fire for them that disagree they need not bragg of their Uniformity who consent Thirdly they have many differences among them as whether the Pope be Infallible whether God predeterminate every action whether Election and Reprobation depend upon fore-sight Which seemes to me as great as any between their Adversaries and in the latter the Jesuites have ancienter and generaller Tradition on their side then the Church of Rome hath in any other Question and as much ground from Reason for the defence of Gods goodnesse as they can think they have for the necessity of an infallible guide Yet these arguments must not make the Dominicans Hercticks and must us If they say the Church hath not resolved it which signifies onely that they are not agreed about it which is that we object I answer It ought to have done so if uniformity to the Ancient Church be required in which all that ever I could heare of before Saint Austine who is ever various I confesse in it delivered the contrary to the Dominicans as not doubtfull and to say it is lawfull for them to disagree wheresoever they do not agree is ridiculous for they cannot do both at once about the same point and if they say they mean by the Churches not having concluded it that a Councell hath not I Answer First That they condemne some without any Councell and why not these Next I say the opinion of the diffused Church is of more force then the conclusion of the representative which hath its authority from the other and therefore if all extant for the first four hundered yeares taught any thing it is more Heresie to deny that then any Cannon of a Councell But may not howsoever any other Company of People that would maintaine themselves to be infallible say as much that all other Sects differ from one another and therefore should all agree with them would not those think they ascribe all other mens dissentions and learned mens falling into diverse heresies to their not allowing their Infallibility to their not assenting to their Decrees and not suffering them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit as teachers of those things that come in Question and to have all others in the place of Disciples obedient to them which is that which Nilus a Greek Bishop professed that because the Greeks would not allow the Romans was the chief cause of separation between them Next They use much to object how could errors come into the Church without opposition and mention both of them and the opposition to them in History I answer They might come not at once but by degrees as in the growth of a Child or motion of a Clock we see neither in the present but know there was a present when we find it past Next I say there are two sorts of errors To hold a thing necessary that is unlawfull and false or that
either pious men have added or peradventure ambitious men encroached If he does not find a government of so high and Exotick strain that neither mans wit would dare to have attempted it neither mans power could possibly have effected it If he findeth not eminent helpes and no disadvantage to the temporall government I shall think there wanteth one Star in the Heaven of the Church to direct these Sages to Bethlehem But if God Almighty hath in all sorts and manners provided his Church that she may enlighten every man in his way which goeth the way of a man then let every man consider which is the fit way for himselfe and what in other matters of that way he accompteth evidence And if there be no interest in his soule to make him loath to beleeve what in another matter of the like nature he would not stick at or heavy to practise what he seeth clearly enough I feare not his choice but if God send him time and meanes to prosecute his search any indifferent while it is long ago known of what religion he is to be of After this followeth no order of Chapters because it is applied to the discourse which was occasion of it Although if what is already be not satisfaction unto the writing and the Author thereof for whose sake and contentment all that hath been discoursed hitherto hath been set down I confesse that I have not ability to give him satisfaction yet least it should be interpreted neglect If I did not make an application of it unto the writing I shall as breifly as I can for avoiding tediousnesse runne over the discourse And true it is speaking of the Church of Rome as this day it is the true Church of God I answer the doubter she neither hath nor can have any error which he need to feare and be shye of The which two limitations I adde for avoiding questions impertinent to our discourse The first for those which are concerning the connection of the Sea of Rome to the universall Church The latter to avoid such questions as touch that point whether the Church may erre in any Phylosophicall or other such like matter which questions are not so pertinent to our matter Neither doe I remit the Questioner unto Scripture for his satisfaction although I hold Scripture a very sufficient meanes to satisfie the man who goeth to it with that preparation of understanding and will which is meet and required Howsoever this I may answer for them who prove it out of Scripture that because they dispute against them who admit of Scripture and deny the authority of the Church if they can convince it they doe well though they will not themselves admit generally of a proofe our of Scripture as not able to prove every thing in foro contentioso That they say the Church is made infallible that we may have some guide I think it very rationall For nature hath given ever some strong and uncontroulable principle in all natures to guide the rest The Common-wealth hath a Governour not questionable our understanding hath some principles which she cannot judge but by them judgeth of all other verities If there should not be some such principle in the Church it were the onely maimed thing God had created and maimed in its principall part in the very head And if there be such a principle the whole Church is infallible by that as the whole man seeth by his eyes toucheth by his hands Neither can I deny but that the Author well excepteth or assumeth that there is no lesse necessity the Church should be known to be infallible or which is this Church then that there is one For if I should admit absolutely that it is necessary for every man to know the Church is Infallible precedently to the knowledge of which is the true Church I should forget what I had before said that satisfaction is to be given to every one according to his capacity It is sufficient for a Childe to beleeve his Parents for a Clown to beleeve his Preacher about the Churches Infallibility For Faith is given to mankind to be a meanes to him of beleeving and living like a Christian and so he hath this second it is not much matter in what termes he be with the first The good women and Clownes in Italy and Spaine trouble not themselves to seek the grounds of their faith but with a Christian simplicity seek to live according unto that their Preachers tell them and without question by perseverance come to the happinesse great Clearks by too much speculation may faile of Such therefore know no otherwise the Infallibility of the Church then because she telleth it them to whom they give credit as innocently as any child to his Mother The Church therefore was made infallible because so it was fitting for her Maker so it was fitting for her selfe so it was fit for that part of mankind that had more refined wits not because it was necessary for every one which was to come to her or live in her whereof the greatest part first commeth to her drawn by some of the meanes before delivered and beleeveth her about her infallibility Neither doe I remit him to a generall and constant tradition as if himselfe should climbe up every age by learned Writers and find it in every one I take it to be impossible Testimonies one may find in many ages but such as will demonstrate and convince a full tradition I much doubt Neither doe I find by experience that who will draw a man by a rope or chain giveth him the whole rope or chaine into his hands but onely one end of it unto which if he cleave hard he shall be drawn which way the rope is carried Tradition is a long chaine every generation or delivery from father to sonne being a link in it I send him therefore no further then to this present age where he shall beyond all doubtfulnesse find that this doctrine was delivered unto this age by the care of their Ancestors And if we seek upon what termes we find that upon a fixed opinion of damnation in failing and so that they had received it so from their fore-fathers upon the same termes with opinion that it had continued ever since Christ his time by this meanes And he who is able to look into the meanes how this can remaine constantly so many ages may find it not onely the far securer but an evidently infallible succession of doctrine inviolable as long as there is a Church And this doth not onely shew that there is one but which she is and that there can be no other For I suppose no man will be so senselesse as to say the Apostles preached one thing in one part and the contrary in another wherefore it will be agreed that once the Church agreed in her faith This supposed let us set the time when one part changed and will it not be evident that the changing Church being
all the Ancients that I could ever meet with were with the Iesuites with an Vnanimous consent and by them if they must be tried by men as fallible as themselves it would have better agreed with their own Principles to have had both Parts judged After the Pope let us hear Bishop and allmost Cardinall Fisher who being one of your own Authors and Martyrs cannot be thought to praevaricate against that Church for whose defence he imployed not onely his Inke but his Blood His words are these There are many things of which was no enquirie in the Primitive Church which yet upon doubts arising are now become perspicuous by the diligence of after-times And that you may see that he speakes of points of Faith He addes No Orthodox man now doubts Pag. 496. whether there be a Purgatory of which yet among the Ancients there is no mention or exceeding rarely It is not believed by the Greeks to this day Neither did the Latines conceive this Truth at once but by little and little And for an Epiphonema he closeth it thus Considering that Purgatory was a good while unknown after Pag. 497. partly by Revelations partly by Scripture came little by little to be believed by some and so at last the beliefe of it was generally received by the Catholique Churches Who can wonder concerning Indulgences that in the Primitive Church there was no use of them Indulgences therefore began after men had trembled a while at the Torments of Purgatory See I pray how will you two agree You say the Church of Rome receives but what she claimes to be come down to her from the Apostles without interruption He saith some of her Doctrines were long unknown and came in by Revelations and Scripture you say new Doctrines cannot come into a Church that holds this Principle He saith Doctrines have come in by little and little So either she held not allwaies this Principle or for all that they might come in To be short all which he hath said seemes to me as if he had purposely intended to frame a Ram to batter down that fortification which you have built about the Roman Church Now though he be of so great an Authority that he needs no backing yet I will desire you to look into Alphonsus de Castro where he speakes of Indulgences and see if he mend the matter He confesseth that the use of them seemes to be late received into the Church yet would not have them contemned because many things are known to after-commers of which those ancient Writers were wholly ignorant Amongst whom there is rarely mention of Transuibstantiation more rarely of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son of Purgatory almost none For though he speaks after as if he meant onely that the names of these were unmentioned and not the things yet it is plaine that if he brought them into any purpose it was to prove that some Doctrines are after of necessity to be believed which once were not and Doctrines consist in the Things not in the Name I could next tell you of Erasmus his saying Epist Pag. 1164. Res deduct a est ad Sophisticas contentiones Articulorum Miriades proruperunt Religion is come down to Sophistry and a Miriad of Articles are broken out But knowing that his words will not find so much respect because he himself finds lesse favour as those of others more allowed among you let us mark these words of Sancta Clara Pag. 296. 1 Edict The Church when it is saidto define any thing she rests not upon any new Revelations but upon theancient lying hid in writings and words of the Apostles which he sayes not as his private opinion but the constant beliefe of Doctors By which it appeares plainly that there are at least interpretations of what the Apostles taught drawn forth by Reason not received by Tradition which makes now apart of the present Roman Religion a sufficient Gappe for Errors to enter at when either mistakings or ends may become new opinions and stile them but interpretations of the old Salmeron a Voluminous Jesuite one neither by his order nor his inclination an enemy at all to the Roman Church being press'd by the opinions of the Ancients affirmes Doctores quo juniores co perspicaciores esse Tom. 13. Pag. 467. That the more modern Doctors are the more prespicatious that perincrementa Temporum nota facta sunt Divina mysteria quae tamen ante a multos latuerunt In processe of time Divine Mysteries have been made known which before lay hid from many That it is infirm arguing from Authority and answers to the multitude of them who in times past had opposed him with these words of Exodus That the opinion of many is not to be followed leading us out of the way with some other very Anabaptisticall answers and very contrary to your Tenets for sure it were a strange Tradition which had so many Orthodox Opposers and nothing inferiour to that saying of Zuinglius so much exaggerated Quid mihi cum Patribus potius quam cum Matribus The same Author in same place saies that Saint Hierome durst not affirm the Assumption but Saint Austine durst and by that meanes the Church perswaded by his reason believes it Such a notable Tradition have all her opinions for even this affirmation which he confesseth brought in this beliefs is it self not now believed to be Saint Austines for I take it he must mean his tract of the Assumption counted not his by your own Divinity-Criticks the Lovaine Doctors which have set it forth at Cullen And because I am willing to spend no more time in the proofe of so apparent a Truth I will not urge Posa who to perswade the defining of an opinion which hath a great current of the Ancients against it so farr it is from having any Tradition for it reckons many other opinions condemned by your Church In Elucidar Deiparae Pag. 1113. and defended by the Ancients unlelsse you will believe his impudent Assertion that they are all corrupted and will passe to the Conclusion of this which shall have for a Corollary the Confession of a Spanish Arch-Bishop who is to be thought to speak with more authority then his own because being imployed to bring that to passe which was desired by so great a Part of your Church he can scarce be supposed not to have had the advice and consent of many of them in what he sayes He then tells us First Wadd Pag. 125. every Age either brings forth or opens her Truth Things are done in their times and severall Doctrines are unlockt inseverall Ages Secondly Pag. 270. To shew that though his opinion had no such Tradition as you say your Church claimes for all her Doctrines yet it may and ought to be defined he desires to know who ever taught the Assumption of the Virgin before Saint Austines and Hieromes time and by whom was that opinion deduct
we have concerning an absolute generall consent a thousand years agoe And of this France may as well be an example as England wherein many called Cassandrians dissent from the publiquely received Doctrines though with so little stirr that our Posterity will not know that there now are such So that all which any man can answer to this Question is that such a one was the first that he knowes of who taught such a Doctrine and such a time the first wherein he knowes not that any contradicted it or that your Church defines it for a necessary opinion and exacted assent to it as a condition of their Communion which answer will be nearer to Truth or Falshood according to the measure of the answerers learning And indeed if you please to remember that when learning rose againe and the Reformation began most Manuscripts of considerable Books had long layn unreguarded by the generallity in Popish Libraries and out of them onely had some few been Printed you must confesse that it was in the power of your Church what answer we should be able to make to that Question which you propose which then it is no-wonder if it were not answered for your willingnesse to keep men in darknesse concerning this even in times of most light is to be seen by your expurgatory Indexes For there though you professe to meddle with none but Moderne Authors whereas it is plaine you go as high as Bertram yet both that will serve to deceive our posterity concerning the generall opinions of these times and if your Church in former Ages used any course somewhat Analogicall to this upon those Authors who then were moderne too as likely enough they did or you have cause to hope they did for your more justification then how can I know when any opinion entered that is either first was at all or first by all taught since in all times how little mention soever be made of it there may have been some Doctors of that opinion though either no Authors or allthough Authors yet by this Stratageme may be kept from us Neither indeed can you answer this Question your self for you know not in what Year or Age did either the giving the Eucharist to Infants begin or end at least Saint Austine knew not the first who believed it an Apostolical Tradition Neither was this a bare Custome but implyed an opinion of good which Children received which the change shewes plainely to have altered and certainely either the first opinion was a Superstition or the latter a Sacriledge But howsoever your Consequence followes not for though your Church conspired and deceived their Posterity yet it might not conspire to deceive their Posterity but to instruct it being themselves deceived And therefore when you reckon up the Motives which men have to speak false I wonder to see Hopes and Feares put in and error left out Object It is Gods course deeplier to root and strengthen those things which he would have most flourish Now Christians know that he made mankind for his Elect the world for mankind and therefore he hath rooted those things which more immediately belong to his Elect as his Church Faith and Holy Spirit in it then the principles either of mans nature or of the world which was made for it himselfe assuring us of it when he told us That one tittle should not perish of the holy Writ though Heaven and Earth should be dissolved and so seeing the latter principle relyeth upon the not failing of God to his Church which should ever watch upon their actions that nothing should creepe into Christian life which presently the zeale of the faithfull should not startle at I thinke it needlesse to seeke further to qualifie the strength of that part which receiveth it from the quality of so good a workman as the Holy Ghost Resp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I must therefore observe that this word Church hath so many significations even among your selves that it seldome comes into the mouth of a Romane Arguer but there comes withall foure Termes into his Sillogisme I could wish therefore that you would still set downe your Definition of it and put that instead of the word Church into what you say least what your late Graecian Defender Cariophilus saies of Hereticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they delight in doubtfull expressions may seem more properly to belong to you Certainlie in some sence the Elect are Gods Church and in that sence the Church belongs not to his Elect but is it neither indeed know I define it as you please how it doth since you confesse that men may oppose any companie of men whomsoever you will call the Church without being obstinate or consequentlie by heresie excluded from Heaven and so may for all that be elected Neither indeed know I how God hath made mankinde for his Elect It is true that having elected those who shall persevere in Faith and Obedience and given man Free-will which joyned with Grace universallie offered might bring him to the condition and in that to election and by that to Heaven God may be said to have made mankinde for his elect that is to be his elect if they shut not themselves out of the way to be so And all men especiallie Christians I beleeve have and alwaies shall have meanes enough to performe these conditions in such a measure all things considered I meane either naturall defects as in Ideots never having heard of Christ as in many Pagans not having Christs will sufficientlie proposed as in many Christians and whosoever is not by some fault in his will hindered from assenting to him it is not proposed sufficientlie as shall by God be from them required But this hinders not but that all Christians may see what they should if they stand not in their own light or wilfullie winke and if they neglect Christs Instructions or Commands and make themselves deafe against his voice charme he never so wiselie they then may fall from necessarie Truths much more from others unto error as well as from good life into wickednesse from which without question Gods Spirit is as readie to keep men that will be kept as from the other and which is no lesse if not more part of the conditions required for in that epitomie which Christ hath given us of the day of judgement men are onely mentioned to be punished for want of Charitie and not mis-interpretations of doctrine though I grieve to see so many of all parts whereof I am too much one live as if God were so obliged to them for their Faith that he were bound to winke upon their workes and not to be an Idolater or not a Heretick were enough not to be damned And certainlie to say That one tittle of Gods Word shall not passe away is not to say that God will keepe here alwaies a knowne companie of men to teach us all Divine Truths which from them because of their authoritie we may without more
such cases where our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Notions concerning God teach us that such a Thing were contrary to Gods maine Attributes to do some of us conclude upon that ground that this he hath not done in these cases which onely concerne convenience of which we have much lesse certaintie begin at the other end and considering first what he hath done conclude that to be sufficiently convenient and so finding no infallible guide by him instituted suppose it convenient that there should be none Truely if convenience were the measure and our Understandings the measurers we should resolve that God hath made every Particular man at least every Pious man Infallible and so to need no outward guide which yet it is plain that he hath not done Though in my opinion in some sence he hath made every man who pleaseth Infallible in respect of his journys end though not of all Innes by the way certaine to find Heaven though he may misse many Truthes in Divine matters For the beliefe which God requires of being to be thought true of his word and that man be ready to believe and obey what he saies as soon as it shall appear to him that he hath said it and every man being able according to his meanes to examine what he hath said It followes unlesse God should damne a man for weaknesse of understanding which were as strange as if he should damne him for a weak sight or a feeble arme that every man is Infallible in his way to Heaven so he lay no blocks in it himself at least is undoubtedly secur'd of any danger of Hell For if they neither desire to avoide the trouble of enquiry through unwillingness to find that to be true which is contrary to what he now thinks and so to hazard either the affection of deare Friends or the favour of great Friends or the feare of some other humane Inconvenience as want of present meanes Improbability to get more or of that disparagement so terrible to flesh and blood of descending to confesse that they have so long erred like Frobenius qui potuisset vivere nisi puduisset aegrotare Eras Ep. who might have lived but that he was ashamed to confesse himself sick If I say none of these or the like things either keep him from seeking what is Gods will or from daring to professe it when he hath found it then such an Error having no reference to the will which is the onely fountaine of sin cannot by a just God be punished as a sin and the proofe of the necessity of an Infallible Director drawn from Gods care of his Church for his Elects sake is easily avoided But say you if there be a director it must be the Church and againe because you know that all congregations of Christians pretend to that Title in some sence as even the worst men call themselves by better Names then they deserve as Aristotle saith Rhetor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I may mistake our enemies Camp for our friends and serve against Christ whilst I think I fight under his Banner though even then I beleeve I should have a share in that prayer of his to whom none is denied Father forgive them for they know not what they doe unlesse you gave me some certaine marks to know the Church by you therefore say what you have before said that yours is it because that alone pretends to Tradition to which I answer what I before answered that the Greeks serve me to disprove the sufficiency of this Mark who professe that they hold the constant Tradition and that under that Notion they have both received what you deny and not received what you propose Object Let us consider in her Presence or Visibility Authority Power As for the first her multitude and succession make the one that she is ever accessible ever knowne Resp What you now say is not to prove your Church a Directresse but having as you think and I think not proved that already you now mean to shew that she hath the Conditions requisite in a Directresse But this I deny for neither is her presence or Visibility for all her multitude and succession such as were in a Directresse required For she besides that she must bring notice and proofes with her to prove that she is instituted by God to direct men and those plain and evident if she require meerly but our assent but if she require us to assent Infallibly then those Infallible which yours cannot do must also be so visible as to be known to all men if not as a Directresse at least as a Company of men which yours sure was not to those Nations which were lately discovered by Columbus But if you except and say she need onely be visible to all Christians though this exception need a proofe yet even this Condition your Church hath not allwaies had for I believe to those Christians whom Xaverius found in the East-Indies your Church had been as little visible as to those Pagans whom Columbus discovered in the West Besides beyond the Abissins how farre Christian Religion may be propagated and yet your Church unknown who can tell Besides even to most of them for any credible Testimony that appeares she may not be very visible But above all that reason being answered upon which you conclude that there is some Director and that ground being taken away upon which you build that yours is that me thinks it will be unnecessary to dispute long upon the Conditions required to that which hath no entity at all Object For Authority her very claime of Antiquity and Succession to have been that Church which received her beginning from Christ and his Apostles and never being all united under the universall government of ver fore-went it giveth a great reverence to her among those who believe her and amongst those who with indifferency seek to inform themselves a great Prejudice above others And if it be true it carrieth an infinite Authority with it of Bishops Doctors Martyrs Saints Miracles Learning Wisedome Venerable Antiquity and such like Resp There is no Question but any Church true or false which claimes to have ever kept the Apostles Doctrines uncorrupted and is infallibly believed to have done so must among those Christians who thus beleeve have even equall Authority with the Apostles But me thinks that this claime before proofe should to others be any prejudice for her especially to those who have great Arguments against her is unreasonable and if after consideration it appears otherwise she hath then onely helpt to weaken her Testimony and hath destroyed her Infallible Authority in any thing else Object There remaineth Power which no man can doubt but he hath given it most ample who considereth his words so often repeated to his Apostles But abstracting from that who doth not see that the Church hath the nature and proportion of ones Country to every one As in a mans Country he
Church will be found to abound in errors and to belie equallie her title being troubled her selfe with what she undertakes to secure others from like the Apothecary in Lucian who undertaking to cure all men of the Cough 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could himselfe scarce prescribe his Medicine for coughing the while Besides of what sort soever the error be yet since the Condition of her Communion is to professe a beleife that she hath none such a one as to them who indeed beleeve so would not be dangerous yet to me who cannot professe this but against my Conscience how slight a one soever may be an occasion of damnation Againe as to me your answer appeares false so to those of your own side it will appeare hereticall to me it would give no satisfaction though you had proved what you but affirme because I desire to know an eternall not a temporarie Guide whereas if in your Church there should happen any Schisme your answer then would give me no meanes to resolve my selfe which part were the guide that is the true Church without a new and peradventure by the way an endlesse search To them it will give scandall because first you presuppose that we must know the Church by the Doctrine and the Doctrine by the Church and secondlie you imply a possibilitie that the Church of Rome is now but by accident and may come not to be the true Church and so all their confidence built upon her as the Directresse of all Churches and the eternall Admirall of Gods Fleet will appeare to have a very fallible foundation Besides in the cause of your Limitation I find more reason to commend your Discretion then your Ingenuitie for for the first if you had said that the Universall Church of Christ must alwaies be connected to the particular one of Rome which were to allow her Infallibilitie you knew Antiquitie to have said much against you and besides that this being not yet de fide among your selves nor evident in it selfe could not serve for a foundation to the whole bodie of our faith if you had absolutelie denied it you knew that you should incurre the displeasure of the most prevailing part of your own men and that then the maine and to the Ignorant the onely visible signe would bee taken away For the second if you had affirmed that the Church could erre in nothing how slight soever you would both have contradicted many of your own side as Stapleton by name and have asserted more then there were any colour of proofe for and would have wanted this distinction to retire to if you were confuted in any particular if you had restrained her Infallibilitie to things necessarie or weightie or the like then the question would again have risen which are those for many errors which we lay to her charge concerne not things indeed necessarie though she adde to the error that other of thinking that whatsoever she holds becomes necessarie by her holding it and then for all you have said the doctrine of Purgatorie might be false and yet she the Church and that infallible as farre as by your Doctrine her Infallibilitie had need to be extended Resp Neither doe I remit the questioner to Scripture for his satisfaction although I hold Scripture a very sufficient meanes to satisfie the man who goeth to it with that preparation of understanding and will which is meet and required Howsoever this I may answer for them who prove it out of Scripture that because they dispute against them who admit of Scripture and deny the authority of the Church if they can convince it they doe well though they will not themselves admit generally of a proofe out of Scripture as not able to prove every thing in foro contentioso Repl. If you hold Scripture to be so sufficient a mean I wonder Sir why you thinke not fit to remit me to it unlesse you thinke that you have severall sufficient waies to prove so evident a Truth by or thinke me not to come with meet preparation Indeed if that be as among you it is counted to come resolved not to judge of what the Roman Church holds by what the Scriptures say but to beleeve that they say whatsoever she holds then I confesse I come not with the Conditions required but if it be to come desirous to finde the Truth and to follow and professe it when I have found it in spite of all temporall respects which might either fright or allure me from so doing then I suppose that Charitie which hopeth all things will encline you to beleeve that I come as I ought to come untill some evident reason perswade you to the contrarie That the Scripture cannot prove every thing in foro contentioso I beleeve but all necessarie Truths I beleeve it can for onely those which it can are such I denie not but that a contentious person may denie a thing to be proved when his own Conscience contradicts his words but so he may Arguments drawn from any other ground as well as Scripture so that if for that cause you refuse to admit of proofes from thence you might as well for the same refuse to admit of any by any other kinde of Arguments And certainlie if the Scriptures I meane the plaine places of it cannot be a sufficient ground for such and such a point surelie it cannot be a sufficient ground to build a ground upon as the Churches Infallibilitie and therefore though it it seemes you desire so much that this be beleeved that so it be you care not upon what proofe yet a considering Protestant who is not as hot to receive your Religion as you are that he should may presentlie say when he is press'd by you with Scripture to this since this is a way of proofe which your selves admit not of an Argument from hence may bring me from my own Religion but never to yours because it is a beame which that relies much upon that by any other way then the authoritie of the Church no man can be sufficientlie sure of the meaning of Scripture That they say the Church is made infallible that we may have some guide I thinke it very rationall for Nature hath given ever some strong and uncontroulable Principle in all Natures to guide the rest The Common-wealth hath a Governour not questionable our Understanding hath Principles which she cannot judge but by them judgeth of all other verities If there should not be some Principle in the Church it were the onely maimed thing God had created and maimed in its Principall part in the very head And if there be such a Principle the whole Church is Infallible by that as the whole man seeth by his eyes toucheth by his hands Repl. Christ is our unquestionable and infallible Governour and his Will the Principle by which we are guided and the Scripture the place where this Will is contained which if we endeavour to find there we shall be excused though we
and by them your selves out of which allowing that there be such a one which I doubt of and that to be yours I shall beleeve that some may be saved till I see some more cause to thinke all error in Religion alwaies damnable which it is plaine by what after you say that you thinke not your selfe and the Church taken in this sence which is your sence may maintaine both Propositions or to shew you how much what you say would make against your selfe thus I argue The true Church must hold that none can be saved out of her but your Church denies not but that some out of her may be saved therefore yours is not the Church My Major is included in your own saying that those two Propositions are not maintainable together My Minor though false yet is also your confession where you say that the Churches Proposition is not so cruell as it seemes though the words be rough and therefore so ought you to make my conclusion too Besides those who exclude all from Salvation who are out of the Church in the other sence meaning by it the Elect as they are not like them in the wrong so they are not occasion of much harme like them who stiling the Church a companie of men of such a beleife and under such a government affirme an impossibilitie of being saved out of it for they giving no visible signe of who is in the Church for who can know the Elect but the Electer cause no want of Charitie nor frequencie of Warre and persecutions by it as the others doe who having made first a visible partition least those who are out of it may draw others out too they send them out of the world by way of prevention Resp But per adventure he is scandalized that the Catholick Church requireth actuall Communion externall with her which he thinketh may in some case be wanting without detriment of Salvation But how would he have the Church speake which speaketh in common but abstracting from such particular cases as may change wholly the Nature of the Question Repl. I am scandalized not because you require to Salvation joining with you in Communion but because also you require joyning with you in opinions and if it were onely this yet am not I any whit satisfied with what you say for it for with the true Church that is the Commpany of true believers in points any way materiall or rather the truest I conceive it not damnation sometimes not to communicate For if they have any never so slight errors and which appeares so to me which yet they will force me to subscribe to if I Communicate with them my assent would be damnable or if they require the same subscription to some truths which yet after my reall indeavours in inquiry appear errors to me I doubt not but my refusall is no way damnable Neither can I absolve your Church concerning this her saying for your reason because she speakes in generall wholly abstracting from particulars which change the nature of the Question for why doth she so why doth she not expresse her exceptions or at least tell us that the rule is not so generall but that it will beare some and not make men who know not that she intends to restraine at all what she so absolutely pronounceth and who will find no cause to take your bare word for her intentions many times at least to hate them as Gods enemies whom he loves as his friends and beleeve them to fry in Hell who shine in Heaven Howsoever if she use to expresse herself in rougher words then her meaning is how apt may she be to be mistaken in severall of her resolutions and consequently how easie is it for some age to have misunderstood the past and deceive the following Neither do I like your example because that is not to differ from the Church but to mistake her meaning though even he who should denie that there were three Gods if he thought that by the Trinitie your Church so meant must consequently think her not infallible and so by your grounds be consequently a Heretick Resp The current of Catholick Doctors that no man shall be damned for infidelity but he who doth wilfully misbeleeve and that to do so it is required that Faith be sufficiently proposed unto him and what is to be sufficiently proposed is not determined amongst them There wanteth not Divines who teach that even ignorantia affectata doth excuse from Heresie On the other side it is most certaine that no man is damned for not professing what he is not damned for not believing Wherefore profession being that which engrafteth a man exteriorly in the Church according unto the ordinary opinions of the Catholicks it followeth that no man is condemned for not being of the Church who is not for infidelity for which it is a very uncertaine Case who be damned and who be not Repl. As the King of Spaine after long calling the Hollanders Rebels at last for his own sake descended to treat with them as free States so those of your Religion when they hope to gaine a Proselite thunder out to him crudelity and without any of these Mollifications which you now use that extra Ecclesiam Romanam nulla est salus there is no salvation out of the Roman Church And Master Knot peremptorily avers that no Catholick of an entire fame ever taught that a Protestant so dying could be saved yet when they are press'd with the consequences they can as it seems vouchsafe to give us better words and find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enough to soften this opinion though such as bring them more disadvantage in other considerations then help in this For first as before it seemed that you are not fully agreed either about the authority of the councels or what constitutes the Church by your avoiding to speak concerning it so now it seemes that neither are you resolved of what constitutes an Heretick and then what remaines there for you to know if what you account infallible and what damnable be yet both uncertaine to you Secondly Since you confesse none to be a Heretique but he to whom the truth is sufficiently proposed and when that is you are not resolved what a more then Sythian Barbarousnesse is it to make a coale of a Christian onely upon suspicion of Heresie especially since the Pagans themselves had Christian Charity enough to perswade them that it was much better that a guilty person should escape then an innocent be punished much more should you rather suffer the tares to grow then venture to pluck up the corne with it and beleeve the best when the truth lies hid in a place so hard to search into as is the heart of man into which as none entered the Sanctum Sanctorum but the High Priest God onelie can have admittance Resp The other point was of putting Hereticks to death which I think he understandeth to be done vindicatively not medicinally I
permit which being or depending upon matter of Fact cannot be known enough 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 possipilitie 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 you neither agree of any certaine and proper markes to know her by nor when it is that she interposeth her judgement some take it to be the particular Church of Rome others of which number you are all which communicate with her supposing the first to be true yet not being de fide it will serve but ill by your rules to build our faith upon and even when she delivers her opinion is not certainlie agreed whether the people of Rome be to have Votes or onelie the Clergie or of them onelie the Pope with the Cardinals or the Pope onelie without them if the Pope whether onelie in his Chaire and what circumstances arc required to his decreeing in Cathedra would beget more questions If all that communicate with her as you say it is as things now stand First I would know whether they be sure to be at all times the Church to that you refuse to derermine and so inclusivelie denie Secondlie It is not possible that such a multitude should ever give any sentence explicitelie nor can we ever know that it hath even tacitelie done so if they be to decree onelie by representation then how large a companie represents them with all their power of whom that companie is to consist how many of them are to agree to make it a binding sentence c. are things yet undefined and like to be and if any goe about to determine them their power being it selfe still a question could not end these Therefore whereas you say that we have no definitive sentence besides that truly to have one and not to know when we have one is much alike I answer that whensoever the Scripture shall seeme to us to have defined we are according to our doctrine readie to yeeld and so the controversie is ended and sure the Scripture may be said to be a definitive sentence as well as the written Councell of Trent and till then though we differ about interpretations of not plaine places we have as much Unitie as you who are not resolved upon the sence of manie decrees of that and other Councels and if a desire and diligence to finde the true meaning of them and an aptnesse to assent when it is found be thought to secure among you those who mistake
the true sence of these Councels why should not the same disposition in us towards the Scripture be thought every whit as sufficient not onely to keepe us in unitie but to secure us from danger To conclude though unitie be a thing much spoken of by you yet I finde it chieflie onely in your discourse your differences are many and great onelie you say you agree in what is necessarie and make the measure of things necessarie what you agree in so the summe is you agree in what you doe agree which it is impossible you should not though you had carried away the bayes from Bibrias his Tombe eager against us and yet divided among your selves like the state of an Armie in Tacitus Manente Legionum auxiliorumque ubi adversus Paganos certandum foret consensu and if your Church brag of such an Unity I perceive a small matter will make her brag Resp Againe I do confesse most English men confesse a Trinity the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour but if to morrow any one or more of them light upon some Book of an Arrian Trinitarian or other Sect so wittily written that he putteth probable solutions for the places of Scriptures shewes slight waies how our well meaning fore-fathers may have slipped into such an Error what is there to retaine those men from disagreeing with the rest of their Bretheren and betake themselves to the Arrians And when the heat is past light upon some Rabbi who shall cunningly exaggerate the absurdities as he shall tearm them of the Trinitie Incarnation Say our Saviour did strange things in vertue of some Constellation and delivering these things so Oratorically that for a new heat some of these things shall seem more conformable then his Arrianisme what then shall hinder this man to become a Jew and at last to prove himself so great a Clerk as to write de tribus Impostoribus Take away the power of the Church which every man doth who taketh away the Infallibility what can retaine any man why he should not yeeld to that discourse which seemeth fairest seeing nothing is certaine Repl. And if you should meet with a book which should give probable solutions to the places of Scripture and reasons which you now think prove the authority of the Church and bring other though suppose but slight yet such as may seem strong Arguments to prove it not infallible and shew waies of the same kind how your ancestors may have slipt in that and by that into other errors what is there to retaine you with the rest of your Bretheren and betaking your selfe to us If you say this is impossible to be done so think the Protestants that the Arrians can give them no probable answer to their places of Scripture and such as will seem so to some is no imputation to their grounds since so may and do our Answers and Objections to some of you who thereupon leave you and yet you count not your grounds disparaged For my part I professe my self not onely to be an Anti-Trinitarian but a Turk whensoever more reason appeares to me for that then for the Contrary and so sure would you be too for the pretended infallibility of your Church could no longer hold you if you thought you saw reason to beleeve it fallible as you must do if all weighed more reason appeared of her adversaries side either your proofes of her authority not to be probable or else your Doctrinestaught by her more contrary to reason then her authority though probably founded yet not upon demonstrations is sufficient to caution and answer for It is true so long as you stick to this hold upon the Roman Church you are sure to receive no error but which she offers you and indeed you need not for those are enough but that destroied which is apter to be destroied then most of the Protestants as weaklier supported by reason then no error that a Protestant may fall into but so may you too and the other is but such a Priviledge as I may have by sticking to the English Church as well as you to the Roman And though this following your guide may be able as long as she keep her self to keep you from some Ditches into which you might otherwise fall yet it may lead you unto others and indeed there is no error but by this way you are liable too yea even of those which she now condemnes since though she changed her opinion which is neither impossible nor unlawfull yet you are by your blind obedience to believe that she had not and to submit your understanding in this Question to some distinction though without a difference These things then I dislike in what you say First Your saying as though there is nothing to retain a Protestant from being of any error when it shall appeare more probable to him then Truth therefore there were nothing to keep him from those errors whereas you should have considered that the greater probabilities may serve reasonably to hold him without a demonstration and the evidence of the thing without a guide and that if those be not ground enough for a man to fix upon in how ill estate are those of your Church in the Question concerning the Church in which they follow no guide nor have any demonstration but professe they yeeld to her authority but upon prudentiall motives which kind of arguments sure may as well and as fixedly preserve a Protestant in an Orthodox opinion against a Heretick as the authoritie of the Church no surelier founded can you against us That every man should yeeld to that discourse which seemeth fairest to him I confesse it is alwaies not onelie safe and fit but also necessarie even for them who receive the Infallibilitie of the Church since those who beleeve that beleeve it because that appeares fairest to them and as you object to us the possibilitie of being perswaded from the truth by some wittie Author why thinke you not the same Author may possiblie too appeare to you to destroy your prudentiall Motives and so consequentlie your whole Faith which is built upon the Church which is built upon them Secondlie I dislike your seeming to beleeve that any grounds which are not demonstrative are too slipperie to rest upon as not onelie being contrarie to reason but to your selfe who told me before that no more was required then a maine advantage on one side and that we had reason to be satisfied with Probabilities to guide our Actions in Religion or since by them we were content to regulate all the other Actions of our life Thirdlie I dislike in your own parties behalfe your saying that a Protestant is in good likelihood to turne Arrian for if you meane onelie that it is possible it concernes you as much as them since this seemes to inferre that the Scriptures doe make more probablie for them which if they did it is not Heresie and to contradict all those whom both parts call
answers that ever I could meet to this Objection I repeat no more these places being so positive to our point This confession of Invisibilitie in our Church for so many ages did much perplex me it seemed to me even to offend Naturall reason such a derogation from Gods power or providence as the sufferance of so great an Ecclipse of the light of this true Church and such a Church as this is described to be seeming to me repugnant to the maine reason why God hath a Church on Earth which is to be conserver of the Doctrine Christs precepts and to conveigh it from age to age untill the end of the world Therefore I applyed my study to peruse such arguments as the Catholicks brought for the proofe of a continuall visibility of the true Church down from the Apostles time in all Ages and apparance of Doctors teaching and administring the Sacrament in proofe of this I found they brought many provisoes of the Scripture but this text most literall of the fourth of the Ephesians Christ hath placed in his Church Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints till we meet in the Unity of the Faith and next the discourse upon which they inferre this necessary visible succession of the Church seemed to me to be a most rationall and convincing one which is to this effect Naturall Reason not being able to proportion to a man a cause that might certainly bring him to a state of supernaturall happinesse and that such a cause being necessary to mankinde which o herwise would totally faile of the end it was created for there remained no other way but that it must be proposed unto us by one whose authority we could not doubt of and that in so plaine a manner as the simplest may be capable of it as well as the learned This work was performed by our Saviour from whose mouth all our Faith is originally derived but this succeeding age not being able to receive it immediate from thence it was necessary it should be conveyed unto them that lived in it by those that did receive it from Christs own Mouth and so from Age to Age untill the end of the world and in what Age soever this thred of doctrine should be broken it must needs be acknowledged for the reason above mentioned that the light which should convey makind through the darknesse of this world was extinguished and mankind is left without a Guide to infallible ruine which cannot stand with Gods providence and goodnesse which Saint Austine affirmes for his opinion directly in his book de Util. Cred. Cap. 16. saying If divine providence doe preside over humane affaires it is not to be doubted but that there is some authoritie constituted by the same God upon which going as upon certaine steps we are carried to God nor can it be said he meant the Scriptures onely by these steps since experience shewes us the continuall alteration about the right sence of severall of the most important places of it that what is contained there cannot be a competent rule to mankind which consisteth more of simple then learned men and besides the Scriptures must have been supposed to have been kept in some hands whose authority must beget our acceptance of it which being no other thing then the Church in all Ages we have no more reason to beleeve that it hath preserved the Scriptures free from all corruption then that it hath maintained it selfe in a continuall visibility which Saint Augustine concludeth to be a marke of the true Church in these words in his book Cont. Cecill 104. The true Church hath this certaine signe that it cannot be hid therefore it must be known to all Nations but that part of the Protestants is unknown to many therefore canno be the true no inference can be stronger then from hence that the concealement of a Church disproves the truth of it Lastly not to insist upon the allegation of the sence of all the Fathers of the Church in every severall Age which seemed to me most cleare that which in this cause weighed much with me was the confession and testimony of the approved Doctors themselves of the Protestant Church as Hooker in his Book of Eccles Pol. pag. 126. God alwaies had and must have some visible Church upon Earth and Doctor Field the first of Eccles cap. 10. It cannot be but those that are the true Church must be known by the profession of truth and further the same Doctor sayes How should the Church be in the world and nobody professe openly the saving truth of God and Doctor White in his defence of the Way chap. 4. pag. 790. The providence of God hath left Monuments and Stories for the confirmation of our faith and I confesse truly that our Religion is false if a continuall descent of it cannot be demonstrated by these monuments down from Christs time this appeareth unto me a direct submission of themselves to produce these apparent testimonies of the publique profession of their faith as the Catholiques demand but this I could never read nor know of any that performed for Doctor White himselfe for want of proofe of this is faine to say in another place in his Way to the Church pag. 510. The Doctors of our faith hath had a continuall succession though not visible to the world so that he flies from his undertaking of a conspicuous demonstration of the monuments of his faith to an invisible subterfuge or a beleife without apparance for he saith in the same book in another place pag. 84. All the eternall government of the Church may faile so as a locall and personall succession of Pastors may be interrupted and pag. 403. We doe not contest for an externall succession it sufficeth that they succeed in the doctrine of the Apostles and Faithfull which in all ages did imbrace the same Faith so as here he removeth absolutely all externall proofe of succession which before he consented to be guided by I cannot say I have verbally cited these Authors because I have translated these places though the Originall be in English yet I am sure their sence is no way injured and I have chosen to alledge Doctor Whites authority because he is an Orthodox Professor of the Protestant Church the reflection of the state of this question where I found the Protestants defend themselves onely by flying out of sight by confessing a long invisibility in their Church in apparance of Pastors and Doctors the same interpretation left me much loosened from the fastnesse of my professed Religion but had not yet transported me to the Catholique Church for I had an opinion that our Divines might yet fill up this vacancy with some more substantiall then I could meet with so I came back into England with a purpose of seeking nothing so intentively as this satisfaction and to this purpose I did covertly under another mans name send this my scruple to one whose learning and sufficiency I had