be truths yet not as divine truths at least of which it is not infallibly true that they are so of which nature I might instance at large in your Councels of Lateran Constance and Trent for to the antient generall Councels I confesse to beare such reverence that I shall challenge any of you to exceed me Section 2 Now to cleare his Lordship from the guilt of a frivolous quarrell at this time I must adde that in such decisions of Councels the worth of the matter and inconvenience of leaving it undecided are the maine things worth considering and so it is possible that the decision may be such that it may tend First to some publique end whether the clearing of obscure Scripture or the recovering of some venerable and usefull practice or doctrine of the Church Secondly to the setling and establishing of peace by interposing such a judgement which may probably sway with both pretenders And in these and the like cases the advantages being so intrinsecall to the decision and withall so great the inconvenience mentioned by his Lordship ought not to prevaile to the disparaging of Councels because though it be an inconvenience yet is it over-weighed with other conveniences and therefore the argument I confesse is not infinitely or unlimitedly true Section 3 But then the case may be that the matter of the definition is of no such great weight or use that there is no such assurance acquirable from Scripture that either side is true nay it may be audacious and untrue and as little from any other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that either side will peaceably sit downe and acquiesce in the decision but in matters of opinion probably prove opiniatour and so the decision will then rather widen the breach then compose it Section 4 In this case or when indeed in other respects the ballance is even set the good of defining counterpoised with the ill then there is place for his Lordship's argument and 't is true that then upon that present supposition that before decision 't were lawfull to hold either way and damnable after it were uncharitable to define my reason is because when charity doth not move to doe a thing i. e. when no advantage shall arise to mankinde by it but on the other side charity shall advise to absteine some one though accidentall hurt being foreseen to arise on the other side there to doe that thing is uncharitable Section 5 Thus have we heard of an expression of Bishop Tunstall of Durham who died in your communion that if he had beene Chaplaine to Pope Innocent the Fourth he would have begg'd on his knees that he would not define Transubstantiation as knowing it would tend to the breach of the peace of the Church and thus in matters of controversy about Predestination c. you know the Pope hath in charity abstein'd to define and the Apostles or whosoever else were the composers of it in their Creed defined but a few things and generally those Churches that have avoided multiplying of articles have by wise men beene thought the most Christian because the most charitable and even in matters of rites and humane lawes the rule is that they must not be multiplyed unnecessarily and the reason is because they would consequently multiply snares on mens consciences as unnecessarily which is just his Lordship's reason in this place Section 6 Which you will rather guesse because 't is cleare his Lordship speakes of those things in which before a Councell hath determined it is lawfull to hold either way perfectly lawfull not excluding also that other circumstance that I have added viz when there is no reall gaine expectable by defining And when the those things are by his Lordship so limited and restrained I know not how to make up your paradox you could thinke fit to change the phrase from those things c. to any thing and after to divine truths and things divine and verities in generall when 't is improbable that he did I am sure very possible and probable that he did not speake of any such as are new steps toward Heaven but such as onely fill mens braines puffe up their phansyes and oft make men to thinke themselves pious men for being of such opinions and to neglect workes of piety and charity as not neare so considerable and so are to them even that believe them accidentally pathes to damnation much more if the doctrine of the decisions of Councels be to be extended to whatsoever uselesse definitions to those that doe not believe them Section 7 Having said thus much for defence of this supposed paradox of his Lordships I must desire once for all these two things from the Reader which Equity will require of him to grant me First that his Lordship's arguments be not extended infinitely but onely be supposed to undertake to conclude as farre as is necessary to the present matter and no farther an example of which this Chapter hath afforded you Secondly that his arguments being by him brought onely to enervate the Infallibility of the Roman Church be so cautiously taken as that they be made use of onely to that end and not at all inclined or wrested to the lessening the authority of the Church or Councels universall for this would be very unjust and ill inferred there being a wide difference betwixt authority and infallibility as also betwixt universall and Roman though by reason of the manner of his Lordships discourse being according to the designe wholly destructive of the one and not assertive of the other the Reader may perhaps be tempted to thinke otherwise and therefore I thought it not impertinent thus to fortify him against this prejudice To the 20 21 22 Sections Chap. 14. It is true we condemne some doctrines which generall Councels have not condemned and we have great reason for it because though Councels be one rule of faith yet not the onely Againe these we hold to be infallible because they are the Compendium and quintessence of the Church and the body representative thereof as a King and the three States be of the whole Kingdome The cause of Pope John the 22. is cleared sufficiently by Ciacconius in his life by Caeffeteau in his learned answer to Plessye's iniquity and by many others and therefore needs not be argued any more I grant it a point of faith that the soules of the just shall see God before the last judgement and doe deny that this doctrine was generally contradicted at any time Neverthelesse I doe not know it to be of faith that all of them shall enjoy the same vision before that great day and that none of them shall be detained in secret receptacles as the Antients hold till they together with their bodies shall be compleatly purged in the great fire of the worlds conflagration as I have treated elsewhere It was not needfull that Councels should define in tearmes their owne immunity from errour because a Councell both in substance and
9 Nay suppose they had evinced that some succession were infallible and so had proved to a learned man that the Roman Church 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 beliefe 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 overthrowne all so proved Section 10 Nay it is but an arbitrary Argument and depends upon the pleasure of the adversary for if any society of Christians would pretend to it the Church of Rome could make use of it no longer Section 11 The chiefest reason why they disallow of the Scripture for Judge is because when differences arise about the interpretation there is no way to end them and that it will not stand with the goodnesse of God to damne men for not following his will if he had assigned no infallible way how 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 who believes that to all who follow their reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures and search for Tradition God will either give his grace for assistance to find the truth or his pardon if they misse it and then this supposed necessity of an infallible Guide with this supposed damnation for want of it fall together to the ground Section 12 If they command us to believe 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 downe now such a way Scripture and Reason or infused faith cannot be for they use to object the fallibility of them to those that build their Religion upon them nor the Authority of the Church for that is part of the question and must be it selfe first proved and that by none of the former waies for the former reasons Section 13 The Popes infallibility can be no infallible ground of faith being it selfe no necessary part of the faith 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 sideing with them So if the Church be divided I have no way to know which is the true Church but by searching which agrees with Scripture and Antiquity and so judging accordingly But this is not to submit my selfe to her opinions as my guide which they tell us is necessary Which course if they approve not of as a fit one for a Learned man they are in a worse case for the ignorant who can take no course at all nor is the better at all for this Guide the Church whilest two parts dispute which is it and that by arguments he understands not Section 14 If I granted the Pope or a Counsell by him called to be infallible yet I conceive their Decrees can be no sufficient ground by their owne axiomes of Divine faith For first say the most No Councell is valid not approved by the Pope for thus they overthrow that held at Ariminum a Pope chosen by Symony is ipso facto no Pope I can then have no certainer ground for the infallibility of those Decrees and consequently for my beleife of them then I have that the choice of him was neither directly nor indirectly Symoniacall which to be certain of is absolutely impossible Section 15 Secondly suppose him Pope and to have confirmed the Decrees yet that these are the Decrees of a Councell or that he hath confirmed them I can have but an uncontradicted attestation of many men for if another Councell should declare these to have been the Acts of a former Councell I should need againe some certaine way of knowing how this declaration is a Councells which is no ground say they of faith I am sure not so good and generall a one as that Tradition by which we prove that the Scripture is Scripture which yet they will not allow any to be certaine of but from them Section 16 Thirdly for the sence of their Decrees I can have no better expounder to follow then Reason which if though I mistake I shall not be damned for following why shall I for mistaking the sence of Scripture Or why am I a lesse fit interpreter of one then of the other where both seeme equally cleare And where they seem so I meane equally cleare and yet contradictory shall I not as soon believe Scripture which is without doubt of at least as great authority Section 17 But I doubt whether Councells be fit deciders of Questions for such they cannot be if they beget more and men have cause to be in greater doubts afterwards none of the former being diminished then they were at first Section 18 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 forenamed considerations Who is to call them the Pope or Kings Who are to have voices in them Bishops only or Priests also Whether the Pope or Councell be Superiour and the last need the approbation of the first debated among themselves Whether any Countries not being called or not being there as the Abissines to great a part of Christianity and not resolvedly condemned by them for Heretiques were absent at the Councell of Trent make it not generall Whether if it be one not every where received as when the Bishops sent from some places have exceeded their Commission as in the Councell of Florence it be yet of necessity to be subscribed to Whether there were any surreption used or force and Whether those disanull the Acts Whether the most voyces are to be held the Act of the Councell or those of all are required as Canus saith All the Councell cannot erre the most may which never yet agreed or Whether two parts will serve as in the Tridentine Synode a considerable doubt because Nicephorus Callistus relateing the resolution of a Councell at Rome against that of Ariminum makes them give three reasons One That the Bishop of Rome was not present The second That most did not agree to it Thirdly That others thither gathered were displeased at their resolutions which proves that in their opinions if either most not present agree not to it or all present be not pleased with it a Councell hath no power to bind All these doubts I say perswade me that whatsoever brings with it so many new questions can be no fit ender of the old Section 19 In those things in which before a Generall Councell have defined it is lawfull to hold either way and damnable to doe so after I desire to know how it agreeth with the Charity of the Church to define
that have held contrary opinions to theirs now before they were defined or they knew them to be so why I say shall not the same implicit assent to whatsoever God would have assented to though I mistake what it is be sufficient When indeed to beleeve implicitly what God would have believed is to believe implicitly likewise what the Church teacheth if this doctrine be within the number of those which God commands to be believed Section 36 I have therefore the lesse doubt of this opinion that I shall have no harme for not beleeving the infallibilitie of the Church of Rome because of my being so farre from leaning to the contrary and so suffering my will to have power over my understanding that if God would leave it to me which Tenet should be true I would rather choose that that should then the contrary For they may well beleeve me that I take no pleasure in tumbling hard and unpleasant bookes and making my selfe giddy with disputing of obscure questions dazled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section 37 If I could believe there should alwayes be whom I might alwaies know a society of men whose opinions must be certainly true and who would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 labour to discusse define all arising doubts so as I might be excusably at ease and have no part left for me but that of obedience which must needs be a less difficult and so a more agreeable way then to endure endlesse volumes of commentaries the harsh Greeke of Evagrius and the as hard Latine of Ireneus and be pained by distinguishing betweene different senses and various lections and he would deserve not the lowest place in Bedlam that would preferre these studies before so many so much more pleasant that would rather imploy his understanding then submit it and if he could thinke God imposed upon him only the resisting temptations would by way of addition require from himselfe the resolving of doubts I say not that all these bookes are to be read by those who understand not the languages for them I conceive their seeking into Scripture may suffice But if I have by Gods grace skill to look into them I cannot better use it then in the search of his will where they say it is to be found that I might assent to them if there I finde reason for it or if I doe not they may have no excuse for not excusing me Section 38 For whereas they say it is pride makes us doubt of their infallibility I answer that their too much lazinesse and impatience of examining is the cause many of them doe not doubt Section 39 Next what pride is it never to assent before I find reason for it since they when they follow that Church as infallible pretend reason for it and will not say they would if they thought they found none and if they say we doe find reason but will not confesse it then pride hinders not our assent but our declaration of it which if it do in any one he is without question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by himselfe and it must be a very partiall advocate that would strive to acquit him Section 40 One much prevailing argument which they make is this that whosoever leave them fall into dissention betweene themselves whereas they in the meane while are alwayes at unity I answer first in this whereof the question is now they all consent Secondly when there is fire for them that disagree they need not bragge of their uniformity who consent Thirdly they have many differences among them as whether the Pope be infallible Whether God predeterminate every action Whether Election and Reprobation depend upon foresight Which seeme to me as great as any betweene their adversaries and in the latter the Jesuits have Ancienter and more generall Traditions on their side then the Church of Rome hath in any other question and as much ground from reason for the defence of Gods goodnesse as they can thinke they have for the necessity of an infallible guide yet these arguments must not make the Dominicans Heretiques and must us Section 41 If they say The Church hath not resolved it which signifies only that they are not agreed about it which is that we object I answer It ought to have done if conformity to the ancient Church be required in which all that ever I could heare of before Saint Austin who is very various I confesse in it delivered the contrary to the Dominicans as not doubtfull and to say it is lawfull for them to disagree whensoever they doe not agree is ridiculous for they cannot doe both at once about the same point Section 42 And if they say they meane by the Churches not having concluded it that a Councell hath not I answer that they condemne some without any and why not these Next I say that the opinion of the Diffused Church is of more force then the conclusion of a Representative which hath its authority from the other and therefore if all extant for foure hundred years teach any thing it is more Heresie to deny that then any Canon of a Councell Section 43 But may not howsoever any other company of People that would maintain themselves to be infallible say as much that all other Sects differ from one another and therefore should all agree with them Would those not think they ascribe all other mens dissentions and learned mens falling into divers Heresies to their not allowing their infalibility to their not assenting to their Decrees and not suffering them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit as teachers of those things that come in question and to have all others in that place of Disciples obedient to them which is that which Nilus a Greek Bishop professeth that because the Greeks would not allow the Romans was the only cause of seperation between them Section 44 They use much to object How could errours come into the Church without Opposition and mention both of that opposition in History I answer they might come in not at once but by degrees as in the growth of a child and the motion of a clock we see neither in the present but know there was a present when we find it past Next so many Authors being lost who can make it certaine to me that from none of those we should have had notice of this opposition if they had come to us Next I say there are two sorts of errours to hold a thing necessary that is unlawfull and false or that is but profitable and probable Of the second sort that errours should come in it appears not hard to me and especially in those ages where want of Printing made books and consequently learning not so common as now it is where the few that did study busied themselves in School-speculations only when the Authority of a man of chief note had a more generall influence then now it hath and so as Thucydodes saith the Plague did in his
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
be no Argument Section 4 This being premised I pray observe in the second place the no force of this Argument against us unlesse it may also appeare that our departing from you is the cause of these Dissentions For if they be but onely consequent to it accidentally this ought not in all reason to be laid to our charge any farther then thus that this accidentall consequent is a probable argument of one of these two things either that you have better rules for the restraining of such Dissentions than we or else that you are more carefull in executing the rules you have and if either of these be said by you I shall then tell you 1. That it seemes this Argument concludes but probably though the proposition were granted and I believe I could urge as probably on the other side and conclude the excellency of our Reformation from that old saying of Clemens by way of Answer to your Objection both of Jewes and Heathens against Christianity taken from the Dissentions of Christians in the Primitive Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The cause of them is because all things that are excellent are subject to the envy of Men and Devils and from thence to the sowing of seeds of Dissentions amongst them agreeably to that of our Saviour that as soon as the wheat was in the ground the envious sowed his tares Section 5 But then secondly for the preventing of such Dissentions I shall adde that though we have not pretence of infallibility and threats of fire to restraine Men from them yet we have other rules more agreeable to antient Church practice than either of these and though the weapon of our warfare are not carnall in your sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the taking away of life yet are they if they were executed mighty to bring downe or shut out Heresies For if you know it not I can tell you that Excommunication that soveraigne receipt of Christ and his Apostles the most perfect designe of charity to save and recover that which is lost to shame Men to reformation and upon contempt of that that secular rougher hand interposing the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo and the Statute of Abjuration are very strong restraints and if they have not been so diligently executed as they ought to be though I hope you will pardon this fault yet he that will not must charge it onely on the Persons of our Magistrates and not on our Religion or the state of our Reformation And then let me adde that even these lawes and this execution of them or the like whether among you or us can extend no farther then to outward restraints and that onely of those that will be so terrified or to punishment of them that will not but not to preventing of Heresies in the inward rise or growth or sometimes in the breaking out whensoever ambition of being Leader of a Sect c. are more prevailing than feare of punishments which cases must be lookt for in every Church Section 6 To which purpose you may please to reflect upon your selves and tell me whether there were not good store of Hereticks before the times of the Reformation If not I am sure Irenaeus Epiphanius and Saint Augustine and Philastrius have abused us in their Catalogues and I beseech you but to remember the ridiculous Heresies of Galatia which Saint Jerome mentions on occasion of Gal. 3.1 in respect of which he conceives the Apostle calls them such fooles and thinks they were bewitcht particularly those of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that would have Cheese mixt with the Bread in the Sacrament which with two others of the like stamp there mentioned came from Ancyra the Metropolis of Galatia And yet I believe you would not thinke the Argument of much force if it should from your example against us be made use of by us either against those Apostolicall Churches or against the Roman Church ever since that so many Heresies are gone out of it and yet that would be as reasonable in us as in you it is to charge all the Heresies which have been in the World since Luther upon the Reformation Section 7 For let me aske you is the fault that you object to us in this matter that Hereticks are gone out from us That which wee have said will satisfie you that that is no argument that we are not a true Church for if it be it will be of force against the Catholique Orthodox Church in all Ages Or is it that they that thus dissent from us are suffered to continue among us if that be it then first there are also Dissenters among you continuing with you Secondly our Lawes and Canons are for the casting them out if their dissentings be Hereticall and that is all that you can pretend of these and if we have been more indulgent than you would have us that is but an errour of tendernesse first and then that onely the fault of Persons Section 8 Having said thus much which I conceive full ground of satisfaction to what you have or can say in this matter I might now adde that if you looke no farther then the Church of England even in these which I suppose you will count the worst times of it you cannot finde any greater or more dangerous Heresies avowed by any considerable Party than are owned by some of the Jesuits among you Section 9 I shall first mention that popular doctrine you know what I meane of Bellarmine resumed and confirmed not long before his death with his most advised care in his Recognitions Secondly the doctrine and practice of resisting and deposing lawfull Magistrates under colour of religion that I set it no higher even to killing of Kings Thirdly the opposing the Order of Bishops as expresly contrary to the sole-power enstated by Christ on S. Peter And also Fourthly the affirming it lawfull that evill may be done so it be in order to a publique good and that I trouble you with no more and yet give you reason to thinke that it is in my power I beseech you to believe that I have read Watson's Quodlibets and I could without much difficulty make a parallel betwixt these whom you so much charge and those whom you defend your hatedst Enemies and your dearest Friends that Booke being so richly able to furnish me with hints that I have surveyed the Writings betwixt the Seculars and the Regulars with the late controversie among you about the Bishop of Calcedons being appointed Ordinary in this Kingdome produced and in them the difference about the necessity of Confirmation and the non even now mentioned in the Canon of the Councell as also the Symbolum Jesuiticum c. and if we have any greater divisions among us yet than these I beseech you to let me know it from you for I believe 't will be no easie discovery and I shall promise to doe and pray my utmost that they may be
were an honest man this might containe in it an implicite beliefe of every Proposition by you asserted and farther by putting his Lordships affirmation by you denied into a downe right Syllogisme you after your wont answer no proofs but prove against the conclusion And truely your proof is a strange one every implicite assent must be resolved lastly into an explicite Ergo One implicite faith doth not containe another As if you should say Every subordinate cause must be resolved lastly into a first cause Ergò One subordinate cause doth not containe another the Genealogie of Abraham must at last be reduced to God therefore Abraham's Grandfather was not Father to Abraham's Father what sound of reason is there in this arguing The antecedent is the onely thing which you goe about to prove and the consequence that which we deny and therefore I shall need say no more to this Annotation C. 24. Answ to C. 24. A. We meane the fire of this world and that fire we are sure is not in all Countries appointed to burne such as doe dissent from us Answ What not to burne such as dissent in matters of faith Is there any matter of faith which is not required sub poenâ ignis I meane also with you the fire of this world If there be speake out But you have by your next Annotation in effect confest there is not and so by that confuted this for so you adde Ib. B. I make no such distinction Answ i. e. No such distinction that of matters of faith some are required sub periculo ignis some not which is in effect that in respect of that penalty all matters of faith are of the same nature Which is absolutely contrary to that former unlesse in that your meaning were that fire was not in all Countries appointed to burne Dissenters from you i. e. not in those Countries where you had not the power And that wil be but a slender obligation from you if it be acknowledged Ib. C. If you could make that appeare we were satisfied Answ It is made appeare as much as your like Assertion of your selves i. e. by our affirming it But if you will have patience to read on in that place you shall see the point stated and as much of it proved as we have need to assert in this matter Ib. D. In some places we doe make use of the Argument from Mutuall Dissentions but in this it is brought against us Answ This is clearly false for in the 40. Sect. his Lordship there mentions it as an Argument of yours and in that place becomes Respondent gives an Answer to that Argument and that is the ground of the present debate Ib. E. Our Criterion or rule of Faith keeps off dissentions when it is followed yours does not Lutherans and Calvinists follow the same rule and yet dissent and condemne one another ours doe not so but remit the differences to be decided to one and the same judge both exterior and interior Answ I was a proving by the antient Catalogues of Hereticks that there were good store of Hereticks in the world before the Reformation from which it followes that either your infallible Judge was not then in fashion or else that it is not such a soveraigne meanes or antidote against Hereticks you seem to distinguish that your rule keeps off dissentions not alwaies but when it is followed and prove that farther because you remit the differences to be decided to one and the same Judge I might answer that our rule the word of God doth so too at least in matters of faith and that any such dissention at least uncharitable censuring of Dissenters is absolutely against that rule But I conceive that is not the thing that commends a rule as a means to prevent dissentions that they that follow it dissent not for the rule if it be but one rule what ever it is will doe that but that it is able apt to keep men obedient and to restrain them from excesses not following of it Now this is an excellence that these many Catalogues of Heresies proved that you had no right to pretend to and if we have not so neither we are but Partners in this piece of humane infelicity to which as long as we carry flesh about us it will be incident for there must be Heresies among you As for your instance of the Lutherans and Calvinists dissentions and condemning one the other I must tell you that this little concernes the Church of England which alwayes disclaimed the being called by the names or owning the dissentions of Lutheran and Calvinist and professeth only the maintaining of the Primitive Catholike faith and to have no father on earth to impute their faith to I might adde more even for those Lutherans and Calvinists that if they did really follow I say not only professe but follow the same rule they would certainly agree also Ibid. F. I doe not excuse all the Jesuits from the doctrine of resisting Magistrats under colour of Religion killing Kings opposing the Order of Bishops c. nor ought you to have accused all For neither all the Jesuites nor neare all be of that mind but of the quite contrary Bellarmine Valentia Petavius and other Jesuits have written for the Order of Bishops against Salmasius and others but none at all have written against it Neither was the controversie between the Saeculars about that point as it is most evident Answ I have already obeyed your commands and indeed had no necessity to accuse all of that Order in all places It was sufficient to prove the point in hand dissentions among your selves that any considerable number were of those opinions which are the worst that are to be found among our Sâ—ctaries And it seems you cannot in your owne heart excuse all as kinde as you are to them If others in a matter of such moment are of a contrary mind this is an argument not against but for the truth of what is laid to you dissentions after all your infallible judgements For the Jesuites opinion of Bishops I appeale no farther then the disputations in the Councell of Trent and the generall pretensions of that Order to an Independency and absolutenesse from any but their owne superiour and the Pope and this though it allow Bishops over other men yet is sufficiently contrary to the Apostolick institution and practice of having all the Churches and Presbyters in them subjected to them You adde that the controversie of the Saeculars I suppose you mean and Regulars was not about that point i. e. of Episcopacy I did not say it was any farther then thus as the necessity of Confirmation is all one with the necessity of Episcopacy which truely to me seemes to be very neare it and I am sure the businesse was whether the Catholicks in England should have an Ordinary here resident or no and that Ordinary was a Bishop so that though it was not of Episcopacy in